I think your (new) MP4 and High-Quality MP4 link is reversed above. It give me a 633 MB vid for High Quality and 2.8GB for MP4. Hmm.. where's the 7 GB vid go?
great features from bing map team.
i like the idea of having a map inside another map. a question , how do you visualize buildings with multiple floors?
another idea, personally, i dont like the colors that bing map uses. to me google maps colors are more clearer. eventhough, bing maps gives more details, sometimes it just distracts me from finding what i want. if there is a way for setting up colors and granularity of details in the map that would be very awesome.
anyhow, i think bing map on silverlight 4 is awesome. thanks.
i've said it before, and i'll say it again.
i don't understand the reasoning behind Microsoft TAG. why can't they just use QR codes? in japan, everything already have QR codes. from my wii games, to books. all japanese phones have a QR code reader and the scenarios in the clip are already common here.
another thing, according to this wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tag#Microsoft_Tag here, you need to send the HCCB to Microsoft and then Ms will send back the URL. Why? Why can't you just get the URL without going to Ms? QR codes can do that. in fact that's how it is usually used here.
i think Ms TAG is a redundant technology that doesn't really offer anything more than QR codes (probably even less, considering you have to be in reach of Ms servers).
Jun 09, 2009 at 8:52AM
my conspiration theory:
is it just me, or is it ping really becoming the replacement of 'this week on channel 9'? <suspicious>..<suspicious>..
PS: sorry dan
Btw,... whats wrong with QR Code ? It's being used everywhere here in Japan.
Bring Zune to Japan (and the rest of the world)...please....
Apr 28, 2009 at 11:53PM
i would not say void* (or void**) in c/c++ as dynamic. there are some similarities in behaviors but not just what i imagined what dynamic is in dynamic language. besides, even though you got a void* (or void**) on COM interfaces, chances are you are going to cast it to a static type and work with that (actually you will have to most of the time). thus reducing the point of failure to where you create the instance and when you cast it to a static type.
one of the problem with dynamic languages (that im seeing) is that the point of failures can be virtually everywhere. and that causes me pain.
Apr 28, 2009 at 9:13PMHaving always programming in static language I also not confinced with dynamic languages. I don't mean that it is bad, but for large complex systems I can't imagine how hard it will be to implement them in dynamic languages. Everytime I imagined that all I can see is pain. But then again although I did some research to an extent, I have never programmed in dynamic languages.
The discussion here between Anders and Gilad is to me a great introductory to the design principles, but it is probably the same talks and papers that I've heard and read for the last year or two. It's just another dynamic vs static typing debate. Charles, I would really hope that in the future we can have discussions based more on real concrete examples and usages of the dynamic languages. Where can it be used as a powerfull tool. Especially on complex systems and development that involves a lot of developers (I imagine development with lots of developers will be a big problem with dynamic languages, but I might be wrong).
All those said, thanks for the video. It sparks my interest even more into dynamic languages.
Erik, thanks for the great video. However I have a question, you said that we can integrate FP with imperative programming by ignoring the monads (IO()) from the type. I think this is feasible, but you can't do the other way around right?
You mean integrate imperative programming into functional programming by inserting a monad into the type signature? That's certainly feasible.
For a good example of a functional programming living alongside imperative programming, I'd really recommend having a bash at F# - it's all the power of C# with all the conciseness of Haskell.
Although I'll never forgive Microsoft for having more people working on Haskell than Sun has working on Java
not exactly, i mean, if right now i have a solution which i built using C#, and then suppose I want to make a 'parallel' library using Hashkell/CLR (if there is such a thing), or a FP, Erik said that it can be done by compiling the code to assembly and when I load it up to my C# solution ignoring the monads (IO(), etc ) will make it usable (or maybe, compiling it to CLI will strip the monads altogether). But, how about the other way around? Suppose that my FP library needs to use a business object (not necessarily a complex one, maybe a transfer object) from my C# assembly, can it be done?