 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2012 10:28, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/10/2012 6:15 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 10/7/2012 3:33, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>>> It's almost close enough to /walk/ to work.
>>
>> TIL brits don't go outdoors. :-)
>
> Strange! And here's me thinking that it was Americans who had forgotten how
> to walk. I've heard that you only go outdoors in an automobile.
That's just Los Angelos. San Diego walks everywhere. The rest of the country
walks or rides depending how fat they are. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/10/2012 06:19 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/8/2012 14:00, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> something called LINQ, which seems to be of very dubious usefulness.
>> (Unless
>> you're actually writing database applications, anyway...)
>
> FWIW, LINQ is list comprehensions, except with a vaguely SQL-like
> syntax. Now you're good to go. :-)
I'm also not a fan of list comprehensions. Everything they can do can
also be done using monads. And in fact, in the latest GHC releases,
"list" comprehensions can be used for any monad. So really, it's just
different syntax for stuff you can already do. So why bother?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2012 11:14, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> So really, it's just different
> syntax for stuff you can already do. So why bother?
Every programming language is just different syntax for stuff you can do
already in assembler. So?
Once you work with a language that does *not* have monads or list
comprehension, get back to me on whether it's useful to bother with. :-)
And you know what? What do you think LINQ is simplified syntax for? Look at
the underlying routines it translates into, and tell me if it's equivalent
to monads. I'm honestly curious.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2012 10:53, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/20/2012 10:28, Stephen wrote:
>> On 20/10/2012 6:15 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 10/7/2012 3:33, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>>> It's almost close enough to /walk/ to work.
>>>
>>> TIL brits don't go outdoors. :-)
>>
>> Strange! And here's me thinking that it was Americans who had forgotten how
>> to walk. I've heard that you only go outdoors in an automobile.
>
> That's just Los Angelos. San Diego walks everywhere. The rest of the country
> walks or rides depending how fat they are. :-)
More exactly, Americans drive more, and more probably own cars, but that's
because Paris to Berlin is like a short commute by car for Americans. People
who live in cities usually don't take cars anywhere.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/10/2012 6:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 18:28:22 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>
>> Strange! And here's me thinking that it was Americans who had forgotten
>> how to walk. I've heard that you only go outdoors in an automobile.
>
> There are places that can be true, particularly in the colder climes. I
> remember days growing up where it was -70F outside (with the wind chill)
> - you wouldn't WANT to go outdoors in that if you could avoid it. ;)
>
Too true.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> There are places that can be true, particularly in the colder climes. I
> remember days growing up where it was -70F outside (with the wind chill)
> - you wouldn't WANT to go outdoors in that if you could avoid it. ;)
-70F sounds refreshing.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/10/2012 8:33 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/20/2012 10:53, Darren New wrote:
>> On 10/20/2012 10:28, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 20/10/2012 6:15 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>>> On 10/7/2012 3:33, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's almost close enough to /walk/ to work.
>>>>
>>>> TIL brits don't go outdoors. :-)
>>>
>>> Strange! And here's me thinking that it was Americans who had
>>> forgotten how
>>> to walk. I've heard that you only go outdoors in an automobile.
>>
>> That's just Los Angelos. San Diego walks everywhere.
And I thought that Saint James rode a white horse, all the better to
drive certain peoples out of Spain. ;-)
>
> More exactly, Americans drive more, and more probably own cars, but
> that's because Paris to Berlin is like a short commute by car for
> Americans.
I think that is a slight exaggeration, 650 miles.
But I know what you mean. Distances in America are large.
> People who live in cities usually don't take cars anywhere.
>
It depends what you call a city, doesn’t it?
Last year I was staying in the city of Hobbs NM and commuting to Eunice
every day.
Hobbs has no public transport. No buses, except school buses, no taxis,
except a stretch limo driven by an Elvis impersonator, to take people to
and from the casino. So understandably people have cars and drive
everywhere.
But how did you learn that Brits don’t go outdoors?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> Strange! And here's me thinking that it was Americans who had forgotten
> how to walk. I've heard that you only go outdoors in an automobile.
A friend told me that he was once amused because he was visiting some
acquaintances/family in the US, and they looked at him like some kind
of weirdo when he wanted to go to the grocery store by foot. (The store
was at something like half a km away.)
I have heard rumors that there are neighborhoods in the US where there
are no sidewalks at all, only streets. You are *supposed* to *always*
drive a car there and, in fact, if you were to walk there, people would
look at you suspiciously (because they would think you might be some kind
of thief scouting the premises or something.) I don't know if this is true.
(Sounds rather impractical to me.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/10/2012 9:14 AM, Warp wrote:
> I have heard rumors that there are neighborhoods in the US where there
> are no sidewalks at all, only streets. You are*supposed* to*always*
> drive a car there and, in fact, if you were to walk there, people would
> look at you suspiciously (because they would think you might be some kind
> of thief scouting the premises or something.) I don't know if this is true.
> (Sounds rather impractical to me.)
I have heard that too, once from a friend who was stopped by the police
in Houston or Dallas because he was walking not driving.
In Hobbs, I wanted to go from a local Walmart to a Radioshack which are
next door to each other (200 meters). I had to drive as they were fenced
the trouble.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> In Hobbs, I wanted to go from a local Walmart to a Radioshack which are
> next door to each other (200 meters). I had to drive as they were fenced
> the trouble.
I have heard that there are many shops there where the parking space in
front of them is actually owned by the shops, and it's forbidden to have
your car parked in front of a shop while you are visiting a different one.
If you want to go to one shop and then to another, you have to actually
move your car, even if it's just by one parking space (to get to the
other shop's parking space.)
(Again, a "or that's what I heard anyway" disclaimer.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
