Do languages need constant evolution to be seen as successful?
As a recent post said, look at c++
Mike
On Wed, 29 June 2022, 11:06 Dr Greg Low via ozdotnet,
wrote:
> In fact, the messaging changed fairly abruptly.
>
>
>
> Compare Kathleen’s article in Nov 2018:
>
If the requirements for what it needs to integrate with stay stationary then
no, but they usually don't.
For example, SQL Server Reporting Services is awesome and still has significant
use cases where it is the most appropriate tool. But you'd be waiting forever
for an updated report viewer
As Alan J Perlis once wrote, "A language that doesn't affect the way you
think about programming, is not worth knowing."
For me it was F# that introduced me to functional concepts; which if
anything has made me a better C# programmer.
So it's the concepts and not the language that I'm taking with
Any IEEE 754 bit-boffins here? A popular way of generating a uniform random
double is to something like this:
uint u = *[32 random bits]*
double rand = u / (double)uint.MaxValue;
However, double has 53 (52?) bits of precision, so you get a deficient rand
that can't produce a continuum of
