"Whoever f---ed this up should be stabbed."

"I have excellent news for you."

I find it convenient not to have to worry about accidentally entering escape characters. YMMV.

Any law changing the name of the Defense Department would have to be passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President (or by 2/3 of both Houses overriding a Presidential veto). The Senate has no such authority on its own.

    // Check whether a number is odd or even.

    #include 
    #include 
    #include 

    static bool is_odd_or_even(unsigned long num) {
        return true;
    }

    int main(int argc, char **argv) {
        const unsigned long num = strtoul(argv[1], NULL, 10);
        printf("%lu is %s odd or even\n",
               num,
               is_odd_or_even(num) ? "is" : "is not");
    }

An assembly language program specifies a sequence of CPU instructions. The mapping between lines of code and generated instructions is one-to-one, or nearly so.

A C program specifies run-time behavior, without regard to what CPU instructions might be used to achieve that.

C is at a lower level than a lot of other languages, but it's not an assembly language.

There are several links to PDF versions of the book. None of them include either a copyright page or a statement that it's been released as open source.

The author's own website <https://afu.com/> includes errata for the book, but doesn't provide or mention a free copy.

A free sample of the Kindle version of the book does include a copyright notice. A book published in 1994 is not public domain unless it's been explicitly released.

Something that appears to be a legitimate PDF sample (not the while book) is here:

https://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/9780131774292/samplep...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_locking#Lock_files

When I saw the title "We shouldn't have needed lockfiles", I expected something about preferring some other mechanism for resource locking.

More generally, I see a lot of articles that talk about an issue in some language or framework that don't mention that context. Just adding "JavaScript" or "NPM" (or whatever) in the title or near the top of the article would be very helpful.

Perhaps that's a valid assumption for readers of his blog, but once it appears here there are going to be a lot of readers who don't have the context to know what it's about.

Can an "NPM" tag be added to the subject of this post? More generally, I encourage authors to include a bit more context at the top of an article.

    unbind-key C-b
    set -g prefix C-Space
    bind-key C-Space send-prefix

Larry Wall originally wanted to call it "Pearl", but found there was already a language by that name, so he shortened it to "Perl".

The name is sometimes expanded as "Practical Extraction and Report Language", or as "Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister" (Larry Wall's own phrase, mentioned in the Perl man page).

But yes, "Perl", not "PERL", is the correct name for the language.

(Ada, which was named after a person, has had the same problem, though as far as I know there isn't even a retronym for Ada.)

In modern terminology, we call procedures/functions/subroutines and pass arguments/parameters, so "pass by (value|name|reference)" is clearer than "call by (value|name|reference)". But the old terms "call by value" et al have survived in some contexts, though the idea of "calling" an argument or parameter has not.

That's true only if "corrected UTF-8" is accepted and existing UTF-8 becomes obsolete. That can't happen. There's too much existing UTF-8 text that will never be translated to a newer standard.

I wish it were true, but it's not.

The difference is clear. Assembly language programs specify sequences of CPU instructions. C programs specify runtime behavior.