Have you ever used a Java application that doesn't spam stderr (or more likely, stdout) with exceptions when you try (and fail) doing the simplest of tasks?
Luckily I don't know Java very well, and I must be far from mastering that sucky way of programming.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-20 21:00
C# sucks at developing desktop applications. I'd like you to prove me wrong.
>>46
Yeah, it's great to see the GNAA is giving Microsoft an excuse so they can say .NET is multiplatform, but they'll never be really compatible with Windows because Microsoft will change it every year, and if they manage to get rid of Java and stay alone with .NET, they'll sue Mono down since they no longer need it and don't want stuff to work on free OSes.
I got told once in an interview that C/Unix (yes, pronounced "seeunix") skills are nice, but we need people "that know the windows." Emphasis on the "." as if "knowing the seeunix" precluded one from knowing how to squeeze VB through a sieve and extract the rancid curds that result.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-21 14:30
Saying that Java is nice because it works on all OSs is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
>>61
Not true. Plants and fungi don't poop, and only some kinds of animals do. Of these, the protostomes aren't likely to have very usable ani, so you're basically limited to deuterostomes.
You could conceivably use analogous structures like the sponge's osculum (provided the sponge is big enough), but I'm not sure you can call that anal sex. Indeed, in the case of the sponge in particular it might be oral sex, since osculum means little mouth.
>>62
Excuse me, but it is true that >>60 simplifies as >>61 implies1. The validity of >>61 does not supervene on the validity of >>60.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. insofar as ``everything'' is taken to mean all ``species'' and an ``anus'' is not had without the occasional need to ``poop''.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-21 20:43
>>63
∃≠∀. >>60 said there are other species you can use it on, therefore that is at least one other species besides humans with an anus. That most definitely does not not imply that every other species has an anus, as >>61 says.
It may be the case, but it may also not be, as is indeed the case.
>>64
I took >>60 to be a general statement, but I also took >>61 to limit discourse to those other species that do have an anus. Either way, you completely forgot about continuing to sage, princess.
>>65
Your assumption about >>61 is completely unwarranted, though a case could probably be made that there is an ambiguity in >>60 that enables you to read it as being about all species. Natural languages suck.
>>66
Not really. It's perfectly acceptable to limit discourse in such a manner, and it is not specified. Without specifying that you can't really conclude either way without taking a liberty of some kind, which as you seem to realize is unavoidable in natural language. It's really no worse than the ambiguity in >>60.
Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy