Don't think the scenario perfectly fits because before generics you couldn't have a method that takes in an Array of Animal, just an Array.
Can a language could resolve this issue without generics or some other contract feature (which Java did later add), or without limiting the scope of array definitions and their use?
May be good to note that Array<Dog> doesn't actually extend Array<Animal>, so there shouldn't be any polymorphic usage between them, and the return statement and method call scenarios are compile time errors with proper generics.
Somewhat interesting and related is that software that performs medical diagnoses better than doctors has existed since the 1970s (Mycin, an expert system). It seems like nowadays that this kind of solution can possibly be provided at scale at a consumer level (can process new medical knowledge by itself, be installed on commodity hardware), not an expert myself though so I don't know if totally true. What exciting times though.
"it proposed an acceptable therapy in about 69% of cases, which was better than the performance of infectious disease experts who were judged using the same criteria."
Regarding the reliance on Emacs, might not be the case anymore. When I was new to Clojure, I immediately used an IntelliJ plugin called Cursive. It was/is great, same experience as writing Java in IntelliJ. (https://cursive-ide.com/)
I am guessing you made jeans before, if so can you share and estimate the cost of materials and time it takes for one pair of jeans? Am curious because $225 for time and materials seems like too much to me.
Perhaps these guys in the video run too small of an operation to have the costs spread around and to invest in tech to speed up the process.
There's a few pictures in the various Github issues, looks like a Scratch like programming environment, unless that was just the developers own software.
Similar to that, I really like how in Intellij I can can use my Maven and Gradle build script as the IDE project's property file. I can now have my source checkout not include any helpful IDE specific files, but still have the project be instantly imported into an IDE.
A possible fix is to start investing, but it may be too late. If I remember correctly I think investing for profit is a gray area in Islam, but Kuwait did it and if I remember correctly they use to have more returns from their investments then they did on oil and paid every citizen a base salary from it (until Saddam invaded and they had to cash out).
They are capable of making world class products still that drive revenue. Their fantasy football UI is the best IMO, and they managed to use that platform to drive their daily fantasy gambling that they have tied to it. Hopefully they could repeat it for Yahoo Banking etc.
I don't know too much about vehicle side of things but my understanding is the following:
MISRA is not on the same level as DO-178. DO-178 covers a lot of ground, from testing, documentation, requirements, that sort of thing, and it's made by a government agency which enforces it during certification, where every single hardware and software component in the aircraft related to flight operations is certified individually. So you will actually have engineers from the FAA sit down and look at code coverage, how requirements are written, how they map to tests, see if the tests cover a lot of cases in your requirements, see if the code implements the requirements, that sort of thing.
MISRA on the other hand are treated like guidelines that car manufacturers generally want you to meet when you deliver them a vehicle component.
There is the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards you have to meet on a vehicle as a whole, but I do not know if they have to prove that they meet the following during a formal certification process.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FMVSS/
So as far as I know, there's big approval process at the end for vehicles, while there's a formal certification process for all components in an aircraft, as well as a big approval process at the end for aircraft.
Someone please correct and fill in the blanks for the vehicle side of things.
From what I observed it's close enough to Java that people can easily switch and are willing to. There's also enough brevity with the language to be at ease with it daily (not as much as Scala) where it may be enough that perhaps people might not want to invest time to go all the way to Scala.
Never knew this, but now that I think about it, I don't think I ever ran into a situation where I got 3 of the same pieces in a row in any Tetris game. Makes sense.
If I remember correctly, that doesn't mean all three autopilots are talking to each other discussing what the best course of action is, it just means that when one fails or is shut off by the pilot that the next auto pilot system in line gets control.
If I also remember correctly, subsequent backup auto pilot systems usually only do the basics, so they can't compare and contrast with the first main auto pilot system on a lot of different actions.
Seems like I can't edit my post, but I just re-read a bit and I meant to say
"goto the next line of code if one of the previous points of entry in the lines above is not called within 10 seconds"
not
"goto the next line of code if one of the previous points of entry in the lines above is called"
I don't know anything about Rust, but things I disliked about Ada (besides horrendous tooling support, free or paid) are:
- Complex language that isn't matched with an equally complex language standard (a lot of undefined behaviors or gaps where things are not explained as fully as they could be, but I don’t remember any specific instances, so maybe I'm crazy on this one)
- Too many situations with the syntax where you can do something only in certain situations, or the opposite. From what I see the only possible reason why in these bizarre situations is to lower the complexity of the compiler. For example, why can't I put a package instance in an array, when the generic package features are so strong that they can be pretty much (ab)used as object oriented structs. Try to search in Barnes' Ada book for terms like, only when, except when, however.
- Reuse of keywords that mean very different or slightly different things in one context versus another. An example would be delay, two lines of code might say delay 10, one actually means sleep the task for 10 seconds, the other means goto the next line of code if one of the previous points of entry in the lines above is called.
- The ability to tiptoe very easily around the safety mechanics of the language and start using it as if it was C, which is very tempting for two reasons:
1. Most programmers programming Ada were/are from a C background and the first things they pick up on are the ways to do things in Ada like you could in C while never moving on past that. It makes sort of sense to not move pass that if you aren't given time to fully digest the Ada way of doing things.
2. Takes less lines of code to program something up if you ignore the all the safety features that language can provide.
I would have not allowed the ability to ignore all the things that make Ada stand out. It makes sense to not use Ada for any development, because programming C in Ada is going to be slower than programming C in C any day of the week.
- Hacked on OO. Can hardly find any Ada code online using OO language features added in Ada 95, but that makes sense because it's a bunch of keyword boilerplate on top of the existing records that's very unwieldy to use and ugly.
On the topic of Ada not taking off, I think one big reason why Ada can't take off the ground right now is that you can't find anything online about it. Try to search for some question you have, you'll find no answers, search the same question but pertaining to the Java or C version, and you’ll get a bunch of answers, blogs, even unanswered questions, Ada lacks that web presence greatly. Where are people going to talk about Ada and develop modern tools for it and frameworks in it if such places don’t exist? (comp.lang.ada is the only location on the internet with an active Ada community) It seems like that can only appear out of thin air if the language is new, where a sudden influx of many individuals feel like they can contribute where their energies are combined together, but if you get an individual here and there that wants to help out, but their energies are separated by one week or one month, then nothing for Ada will ever come about.
On the topic of concurrency, you may want to look into Ada on that too, concurrent structures are baked into the syntax of the Ada language, and can be quite complex/powerful/concise.
Can a language could resolve this issue without generics or some other contract feature (which Java did later add), or without limiting the scope of array definitions and their use?
May be good to note that Array<Dog> doesn't actually extend Array<Animal>, so there shouldn't be any polymorphic usage between them, and the return statement and method call scenarios are compile time errors with proper generics.