Y2017/M05/20170522Z6LU.jpg' alt='Sick Programing Tool' title='Sick Programing Tool' />In the music video for Fetish, Selena Gomez harms herself in all kinds of painful and degrading ways, while displaying symptoms of severe mental issues. The video is. Up until yesterday SketchUp Pro 2017 was working wonderfully, now it still works great with the exception of one thing It is impossible to tripleclick or double. A stolen smartphone can ruin anyones day, though our smartphones builtin antitheft software seems to be working, according to San Francisco District Attorney. News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Connecticut. Sick Programing Tool' title='Sick Programing Tool' />Manifesto of the Programmer Liberation Front. This Manifesto is deprecated. My views have evolved, and a new version will be released real soon now. Compared to every other field of design and engineering, programming is an embarrassment and a failure. The software crisis has dogged us from almost the beginning. We who have made programming our life will no longer tolerate this. Language matters. Programming languages are the fundamental technology of programming. This portal is only for online MSME SSI Registration and obtaining certificate in India. Issuu is a digital publishing platform that makes it simple to publish magazines, catalogs, newspapers, books, and more online. Easily share your publications and get. Telecharger Autocad 2010 Avec Crack Gratuit Fichiers. BREAST IMPLANT SYMPTOMS Wanda simer November 1, 2017 at 311 pm. Thank you so much I have been sick ever since I got these implants but I. Spray bottles are my favorite tool for training indoor cats to stay off tables and counters. Give them a little spritz of water an they learn quickly not to repeat. To make fundamental improvements in programming you need a fundamentally better programming language. History is not over. There is a widespread belief in both industry and academia that working on new programming languages is pointless. This is short sighted. Historically, all sciences and technologies undergo revolutionary change. The lack of meaningful progress in the last 2. It is a good time for a revolution. Its usability, stupid. Programming is so hard that only highly talented, trained, and dedicated individuals can do it passably well. The inescapable conclusion is that programming as we know it is just unnatural for humans. The solution is to reinvent programming to suit human cognitive skills to program the way we think. This is a matter of usability. The sad fact is that modern programming languages are usability disasters, full of design mistakes inherited from earlier eras. Power to the people. The first principle of usability is to know the user. The vast majority of programmers are those building end user applications, and the even greater population of potential programmers are the end users themselves. This kind of programming is hard not because of sophisticated algorithms and data structures, but rather because of the overwhelming multiplicity of simple constructions. Application programming is where the most people stand to benefit the most. Kernel coders and compiler writers can stick with C. Development is adaptation. To make programming languages more usable, we must ask how they are used. In practice, programming is rarely development from scratch, but the adaptation of existing code to new needs. Development from scratch is generally a last recourse due to the inability to adapt existing code. The fragility of code to changes in design and intention is one of the most appalling failures of programming, and one of the most visible to outsiders. Extreme Programming is a movement to adjust our methodologies and practices to the reality of adaptation. Refactoring is a technique to build support for adaptation into IDEs. The logical next step is to build adaptability into programming languages themselves. Programming languages have often been designed, and are still largely taught, under the nave illusion that programming consists of first specifying behavior and then implementing it. OO inheritance provides a little improvement, but is increasingly acknowledged to be fragile and inadequate. We need an Extreme Programming Language. To fully embrace adaptation as the essence of programming will require a change of attitude that is quite difficult discarding elegant yet fragile constructions in favor of messy but flexible ones. One case in point is copy and paste programming. This violates all the accepted rules of modularity and hygiene, yet everyone still does it routinely. Either most programmers are stupid and evil, or the accepted rules are idealistic and impractical. The latter is the case. It is necessary to embrace copy and paste as a first class semi modularity mechanism in the language to track it, manage it, and eventually refactor it into proper modularity. This may be heretical, yet an honest appraisal of how programmers really work requires something like it. Usability is a subversive idea. Text is a dead end. Programming is stuck in an evolutionary dead end the use of character strings to encode programs. Every other computer mediated form of expression has evolved beyond text into sophisticated WYSIWYG interfaces to complex data structures. For example, no one still uses textual markup for word processing except, notably, Computer Scientists with Te. X. We need WYSIWYG programming. Its called code for a reason. Programming languages are built upon two basic tricks the use of grammars to encode tree structures ASTs into text, and the use of names to encode linkages across these trees. Much of what makes a language unique is its particular style of name resolution, as in the polymorphism and inheritance techniques of OO languages. Text is a dead end because all these sophisticated techniques in one way or another are just encoding structure in text strings. This is disastrous for usability. Structure needs to be made explicit and directly manipulable, not implicit and encoded. Mentally parsing and interpreting this implicit structure is an enormous cognitive burden for the programmer. Modern IDEs such as Eclipse go to great lengths to extract the encoded structure back out of the text and help us to visualize and manipulate it somewhat more directly. Refactorings are provided by the IDE to automate the complex and widespread changes in syntax necessary to effect simple semantic changes. This is absurd. We should manipulate semantic structures directly through a WYSIWYG interface. The language is the IDE. Much of what we know about programming language design is about clever ways to encode structure in text, and fancy ontologies to rationalize naming. Discarding the textual representation suddenly makes all this irrelevant, and opens a whole new space of design choices. Some who are invested in the status quo will see this as a threat and become counter revolutionaries. Visual languages are not the solution. Prior and ongoing attempts to evolve beyond textual programming have focused on Visual Programming. The common idea is to replace AST structures with some form of graphical diagram. While well intentioned, nothing compelling has yet resulted from this approach, and it is widely seen as a failure. The reason may be that it does not go far enough, merely substituting a different surface representation for the same old semantics and generally retaining even the surface syntax of names. These semantics are highly evolved to suit textual representations, so it is not a surprise that merely altering the surface representation does not help. We need to simultaneously rethink both the syntax and the semantics of programming languages to break out of the current deadlock. Programming is not Mathematics. Many usability failures of programming languages are due to the pernicious idea that programming should be like mathematics. The need to discard unrealistic expectations of mathematical elegance has already been discussed. Expressions do not scale. In Science and Math, formulas are typically one liners. Even small programs are far larger than any mathematical statement. Expression based languages attempt to scale up formulas to hundreds or thousands of lines. One reason this does not work is that people can not easily handle more than about 2 levels of nesting. We are not stack machines Natural languages rely on linear narrative flow and avoid deep nesting. This may be the real problem with LISP people complain about parentheses, but they are really complaining about deep nesting. Featureless structures do not scale. Argument lists become difficult to use beyond about 2 or 3 arguments. Even in math, operators and functions of arity more than 2 are rare. English verbs take at most 4 arguments.