“At issue, the judge said, is whether the actions rose to the level required by a new anti-spam law, which states that spam must be not only annoying but deceptive.” Via [Alice and Bill.com]
You can never be sure that a news report isn’t about some legal “crossing the ts and dotting the is” but the idea that anyone could question the deceptive character of bulk email is amazing. While the online community is busy playa-hating the RIAA and MPAA, they give a free pass to the direct-marketing lobby and credit-card companies that enable this life-clogging plague.
Optional static typing has long been requested as a Python feature. It’s been studied in depth before (e.g. on the type-sig) but has proven too hard for even a PEP to appear. In this post I’m putting together my latest thoughts on some issues, without necessarily hoping to solve all problems. via [Artima Weblogs]
Even though I’m a big explicit typing proponent, I don’t like the idea of optional explicit typing. Visual Basic has this and I don’t think it’s a great success. People don’t code implicitly until their projects hit 1,000 lines and then say “Well, it’s getting a little obscure, let’s turn on explicit.” They either go with implicit until the project is so incomprehensible that even the original coder has a hard-time making things explicit, or they go explicit from scratch. I think one’s attitude towards implicit/explicit typing is part of what you bring to language choice – I’ll turn to Python when I want implicit, I’ll turn to C-derived languages when I want explicit.