Ahh .. the subject change on me! I give up!
On Feb 21, 12:13 pm, Jason Waring wrote:
> Fair enough. Perhaps I should rephrase myself. I meant that to say
> that *I* felt it was hijacked.
> I came back to the list and couldn't find the topic. The name had
> changed.
>
&
meant to provide a
> cleaner separation of the different branches. If that annoys people here I'll
> stop. Maybe it's too Usenet for Web 2.0 :-) Somehow people seem to be used to
> a flat world view nowadays, which I believe is sad but I'm willing to accept
> that. Pete
Throughout my 20 something year career as a software developer, women
have always been in the minority. However, my first year at Uni was in
Health Science. In my Human Biology lectures there were 500 students
only 7 of which were male!
Gender imbalance within work disciplines is as much a refle
Peter, why did you change the subject of this discussion? Dianne has
raised an important issue, and we should respect her right to not have
it be hijacked!
On Feb 20, 6:25 pm, Peter Becker wrote:
> [was Re: [The Java Posse] Re: An open letter to women Java Posse
> listeners (and their coworkers)
Well I for one am tickled pink with the Posse's interviewing style.
It's non-confrontational, respectful, light-hearted, and usually the
questions are spot on. Bouquets not Brick Batts from me.
On Feb 15, 3:39 pm, Dick Wall wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> There was no taboo subject surrounding the Linux ve
Hi Mark,
Smells similar to how Matlab passes multiple return arguments. The []
give the feeling that it is an array, which I like, but I'm not too
keen on accessing the elements by index. Following is an alternate
suggestion for how to use the return arguments:
[Integer foo, String bar] = d
Hi,
If I remember rightly, the max heap size was 16Mb during the 1.0.x
days of Java. The rationale I heard/read was to set a low base memory,
so application would be designed to run on most 'modern' computers. Of
course, back then, there was a lot of discussion about using Java for
Applet and emb
