The hermeneutics of naming yields few insights.
What difference does it make whether it's an "object-oriented language"?
Why not just use a URL shortener?
+Remember this?
+three programmers go into a bar. the sam user is there because he's finished the day's work and wants to relax. the vi user is there because he's going to be working all night and needs a break. the emacs user is there because there's nothing else he can do: both his hands are in splints because of carpal tunnel syndrome.
+Oh yeah, great: eye tracking and mind reading.
+Certainly not.
+It's a terrible idea.
+First, check your errors.
+I second that!
+Ha ha.
+Let the machine do the work.
+I'm not going back in there.
+Advertisers.
+I'm not used to success.
+Not needed.
+2106 is a long time from now.
+Why does this matter?
+Does anyone know of a version of sam for Windows that will run on 64-bit installations?
+Great, thanks.
+I used to be a physicist.
+Please file an issue at golang.org/issue/new
+There is no simple definition for what people want.
+One man's toy is another's real system, and every tool adds to the arsenal.
+There is no problem in computer science that cannot be solved by another JSON configuration file.
+Anything important enough to be in a dot-file is important enough not to be in a dot-file.
+Again, please read the blog post I cited.
+Experiment!
+Live and learn.
+Something else may happen one day.
+I don't know what the right answer is.
+If it's not worth doing well, it's not worth doing at all.
+Manual is wrong.
+The Plan 9 FAQ needs work.
+In another 24 years, programmers will learn how to use malloc.
+Use a tool.
+Please define 'trouble'.
+I just noticed that Glenda, the Plan 9 bunny, has a body the same shape as Tor Johnson's head.
+I must admit I find the fissiparous nature of the Open Source/FSF community a little dispiriting.
+Thanks for saying that.
+Is this a bug fix?
+I disagree with the premise.
+I speak from experience here.
+It's not how many features that matter, it's how the features interact.
+Just write the code.
+Looks like a bug.
+And now we have diverged so far from the original question that we can safely ignore it.
+I oversold due to fading memory. But I stand by the fundamental point.
+Although there may be specific examples where generated output is uninteresting, deciding whether to read code based entirely on whether a computer or a human wrote it doesn't seem a good general principle to me.
+Short answer: No.
+None of that is excusable, only true.
+File an issue?
+The documentation is clearly insufficient.
+You don't say anything about the problem beyond "it doesn't work".
+Can you be a little more specific please?
+Working as intended.
+That's a shame.
+Nothing has changed.
+Correct as written. Maybe badly written, but correct.
+Does it make a difference?
+One more thing.
+That's odd.
+Nothing in Go is accidental.
+Go was supposed to be a fresh start.
+Ken and I ported Plan 9 to the SPARC in 6 days over one fun Christmas break.
+I told the truth as I saw it.
+Wait, teletypes are finally gone so we need *pseudo* teletypes?
+I started complaining about this long ago and nobody cared then, either.
+It is very unlikely to change.
+Don't do that.
+This is just me speaking, not the Go team.
+Go doesn't have it.
+Even the simplest changes can be disruptive.
+Feels like the wrong solution to me.
+Copying source just leads to confusion.
+More discussion is required.
projects / plan9front.git / blobdiff