rffn

Is it really necessary to call everything a gate? This is silly and boring.

Well, the "PHB" was right for once. Requesting the use of mainstream languages like PHP or Python prevented the use of exotics like the author mentioned he would have used. They might be good but their limited user base makes it very difficult to maintain the code in the future.

The choice seems to be very limited though, there would have been more options in the market. But using Python or PHP has worked for businesses of seemingly sizes and the blog author could have come up with reasons to his boss why they don't fit.

From the elegance of the article's writing and the insightfulness presented the "PHB" seems to have done the author a benefit though to select reasonably simple systems.

Fer EE newsletters: I find SemiWiki (https://www.semiwiki.com/) quite interesting. It leans a bit to the manufacturing side though.

Pycoders Weekly

DashingD3.js

Kickstarter newsletters for Underworld Ascendant, Project Eternity, Shroud of the Avatar and Tides of Numenera (still being a big child... :))

CrytpoGram

SemiWiki

some foodie newsletters

This is replaying a common scheme to define some rules which cover the most stupid people around and then defend these rules because they are "for the children". Labeling everything as verboten is one of the society diseases of our times.

That law is a humanity is an interesting lingual twist.

I think there is another reason, besides Magic being scripted in Tcl. Back in the days when some EDA companies decided on Tcl there were only a few languages which could be embedded. Tcl was the only one with some popularity, documentation about embedding including sample code and a commercially viable license. For Perl for instance the embedding feature was largely undocumented at the time (early 90s I think) and Perl is GPL which is a no-go for commercial software. Ruby did not exist yet and Python maybe just was not visible enough.

DDD is there since the dawn of times. It can be quite powerful, in particular when working with linked lists, nested structures, etc. Unfortunately there was not much active development in the past years. I think it being developed using a nowadays uncommon toolkit does not help. As far as I know there were attemts to move DDD to Qt or GTK to reactivate development and maybe make it more portable but these attempts apparently did not bear any visible fruits. It would be nice to see DDD development come to live again.

Regarding the last one:

"Simple is beautiful."

I do not have difficulties considering the existing boards. I would just not call them "open", because specs are missing, blobs for some functions, etc. This board is advertised as open and my critique pointed towards that. Advertising non-open things as open does in my opinion hinder the progress to more open hardware. That's a bad thing.

How open is this hardware? Are there open specs for Mali? Are there open specs for CSI and DSI? All this is on the board. Available specs are needed to write open source software or at least make it much simpler. I have difficulties to consider a board with missing specification for important parts or connectors to be "open".

The tablet gets eaten by phones and phablets. As somebody else put it: "Phone, tablet, and laptop; pick any two." No need to have three of them for most people. In addition, the customers who tink to need all three already have a tablet.

If I could have a router or even just an AP with complete hardware documentation in public and 100% open source firmware for it that would be an ok price. With the advertised $25 of course greed kicked in as well. ;-)

Good point. I remember working on MIPS M4k CPUs many years ago which could almost service a single 1Gbps link (at 100% CPU though). Without a gigabit link on the other side fast WLAN is pointless though. It was just too tempting to see a little board for networking. I agree though, networking is not the primary market.

Exactly. Where I live I see about 20 networks in 2.4GHz, not even talking about Bluetooth, 802.15.x and other 2.4GHz users. Over the latter WLAN should have priority though if the other devices are standard conforming. In 5GHz I can still only see one or two other networks.

Could I have this please with 802.11ac WiFi, 5GHz, preferrably supporting a 4x4 MIMO setup. I would love to have an open access point for my network. I like to have more than 300Mbps and to avoid the 2.4GHz network though even more. I understand this owuld be more expensive, but would be willing to pay a higher price.

This was my first thought as well. This product name is the sure way to failure because it describes all kinds of things. Their product is one of the least significant items called Terminal, due to being the new kid on the block. They hide in plain sight.

I thought this exists already: http://www.salesforce.com

Maybe, maybe not.

Could be that the header file is not compatible with C99 either. This seems to me rather likely. Also it might be that the ABI changed in a way that the C89. This depends on platform and tool chain.

There is a large amount of code which is compatible. It is easy though to get an example which isn't.

I think I meant to write Perl 5, completely forgot about the Perl 4 vs. Perl 5 excitement in the early 90s. I am not sure yet whether Python 2 to Python 3 is more like Perl 4 to Perl 5 or more like Perl 5 to Perl 6, but for Python's sake I hope the former.

IMHO Python 2 is one of the big, important languages of computing history with a large enough user and code base which makes them go nowhere, no matter what a committee decides. I would put Cobol, C, Perl, Java, Fortran in the same league. Like 'em or not - they are here to stay.