Anybody else think of the book Godel Escher Bach when they were watching this movie? Beautiful how the movie wraps in on itself like a mobius strip.
What a Programmer Sees When He Watches Inception
11–20 of 78 posts
Re: What a Programmer Sees When He Watches Inception
#12'Inception' was a classic example of recursion.
Not really, just a callstack four* calls deep. ...just four? Hmm, actually there was multi-threading, using sort of kick-based synchronisation primitive.
actually there was multi-threading, using sort of kick-based synchronisation primitive
I think they actually used an actor-based threading model.
Re: What a Programmer Sees When He Watches Inception
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a Programmer Sees When He or She Watches Inception does not have the same panache.
I've never understood the animosity towards overloading `they` as a neuter singular pronoun. It doesn't seem to introduce any sort of ambiguity in the language and replaces a whole slurry of fumbling and hackish attempts with a single widely understood syllable. It's damned convenient. Of course, I also hold a disdain for "proper quoting".
Someone should make a hacker's manual of style.
Re: What a Programmer Sees When He Watches Inception
#14Re: What a Programmer Sees When He Watches Inception
#15Anybody else think of the book Godel Escher Bach when they were watching this movie? Beautiful how the movie wraps in on itself like a mobius strip.
Is this wrapping around because of the first "act", when washes up on shore? I still don't quite understand how that fits in, if someone cares to elucidate.
Re: What a Programmer Sees When He Watches Inception
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a Programmer Sees When He or She Watches Inception does not have the same panache.
I've never understood the animosity towards overloading `they` as a neuter singular pronoun. It doesn't seem to introduce any sort of ambiguity in the language and replaces a whole slurry of fumbling and hackish attempts with a single widely understood syllable. It's damned convenient. Of course, I also hold a disdain for "proper quoting".
> Of course, I also hold a disdain for "proper quoting".
What do you mean here? When talking about "proper quoting", I much prefer what I just did to what you're supposed to do (in American English) for "proper quoting."
I feel like when you quote things they become a unit together with the quotes, and the punctuation should then treat the whole composition as a single object. You wouldn't stick punctuation in the middle of the word at the end of a claus,e so why would you do that with quote?s
Re: What a Programmer Sees When He Watches Inception
#17if(depth > 3) return false;
else {
try {
// ... do what the OP wrote
} catch (DeathException D) {
enterLimboState() ...
}
}Re: What a Programmer Sees When He Watches Inception
#18Can someone explain why the zero g scenes didn't cascade down through each dream level? They were feeling forces in the first dream in the van and those would go to the hotel but those sleeping there would not feel the same forces (eg lack of gravity) the next level down.
I did really love the idea behind the totem though, very clever.
Re: What a Programmer Sees When He Watches Inception
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a Programmer Sees When He or She Watches Inception does not have the same panache.
I've never understood the animosity towards overloading `they` as a neuter singular pronoun. It doesn't seem to introduce any sort of ambiguity in the language and replaces a whole slurry of fumbling and hackish attempts with a single widely understood syllable. It's damned convenient. Of course, I also hold a disdain for "proper quoting".
Do you hold disdain for properly citing references in technical journals? The rational for proper quoting is the same.
Re: What a Programmer Sees When He Watches Inception
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
"He" is a common vernacular; get off your soapbox.
"He" as gender-neutral singular pronoun is not even vernacular -- it is standard English.
Standard English is a construct of a society predominantly run by, and for, men. It is, in no small way, the English of Those Who Rule, which is to say, at least for a very long time, men.