is it a bad Idea to stick with one Programming language Such as Java and One Web Framework to become an expert?

I have been working with diverse technologies to develop software and websites, now i would to become an expert in developing software/solutions in banking and financial industries. Is it a good idea to stick with one programming language and one frameworks to better performance ?

Amazing lyric videos in any language and any style for $125

The best lyric and music videos at the best price! with more than 5 years of experience in the music industry, we have: tools knowledgeideasrecommendations And everything to make your music FLY!, just ask for our custom plans and see what we can do for you. We recommend to ask with us in the chat before any order.

by: serson
Created: —
Category: Video
Viewed: 328


How to prove this language is not regular?

I am currently learning Pumping Lemma and found this question. But I am not able to prove it not regular. L = { $ 0^n$ | n is power of 2}. So, here I considered w = $ 0^{2^n}$ where n is constant of Pumping Lemma. Then divided w into xyz where y $ \ne \epsilon$ and |xy| $ \leq$ n. Hence, |y| will be between 1 and n. So, |x$ y^k$ z| satisfies L if |y| = 2 for all values of k and it is within the bound. So, how is L irregular? The question is to prove it is irregular but here it is coming as regular.

What makes a common programming language non-context-sensitive but RE?

I have a vague understanding that a (sane) programming language is RE as they are Turing-complete, being able to describe any Turing machine.

But I cannot pinpoint what aspect makes a programming language RE, not context-sensitive. For example, I’m guessing the variables in any scope structures like for can be described in a context-sensitive grammar with a fairly bulky (but finite) number of production rules.

One wild guess is that it’s because of pointers or references, making it impossible to describe with a finite number of production rules. Can anyone teach me about why it is?

Concatenative programming language based on the stack as a non-trivial virtual machine

For a functional programming language project like Haskell, I design a VM whose intermediate language is stack-based, and focused on the concatenative paradigm:

- Functions / quotations / combinators - Stack shufflers - Data - An FFI targeting C 

Let’s summarize it this way.

My question is whether this is sufficient and relatively efficient to

- Compile a Haskell-like language typed in this IR - Interfacing and using all kinds of foreign C functions 

and if, possibly, you have an idea about how to do it or any ressources.

The biggest challenge, I think, will probably be, if possible, to represent the data according to the type 1) of the source language (Haskell-like) and 2) of the FFI targeting C, through an IR that has no typing notion (except internally the distinction of numbers, static arrays and characters). If you had any advice on that, it would also be interesting.

Quiero hacer un toggle switch language?

Quiero hacer un toggle switch language para dos idiomas y mi segmento de codigo

El detalle es el siguien estoy haciendolo con .pug y no se mucho de sass, he instalado sass al pie de la letra me compila de sass a css correctamente, me aparece el toggle switch con la carita pero cuando doy click no hace el movimiento o el change

que estoy haciendo mal? Me he guiado de esto https://codepen.io/mburnette/pen/reRKNx

$  ('.wrap').on('click', function(e){ 	$  (this).toggleClass('funny'); 	$  (this).addClass('active'); });
scss *, *:before, *:after {   -webkit-box-sizing: border-box;    -moz-box-sizing: border-box;    box-sizing: border-box; 	transition: 0.5s; }  body { 	background: #eee; 	font-size: 18px; 	font-family: 'Roboto', sans-serif; 	text-align: center; 	padding: 5em 0; }  .wrap-text { 	display: inline-block; 	vertical-align: middle; 	margin: 0 1em; 	font-size: 2em; 	color: #333; }  .wrap { 	display: inline-block; 	vertical-align: middle; 	background: #ddd; 	height: 10em; 	width: 24em; 	border-radius: 10em; 	padding: 1em; 	cursor: pointer; 	 	&.funny { 		background: #069; 	} }  .toggle { 	overflow: hidden; 	background: #fff; 	height: 8em; 	width: 8em; 	border-radius: 100%; 	position: relative; 	 	&:before, 	&:after { 		position: absolute; 		content: ''; 		top: 25%; 		height: 1em; 		width: 1em; 		background: #ddd; 		border-radius: 100%; 	}  	.active &:before, 	.active &:after { 		animation: slidetoboring 0.4s linear; 	}  	&:before { 		left: 25%; 	}  	&:after { 		right: 25%; 	} 	 	.funny & { 		margin-left: 14em;  		&:before, 		&:after { 			background: #069; 			animation: slidetofunny 0.4s linear; 		} 	} }  .mouth { 	position: absolute; 	top: 60%; 	left: 1.5em; 	right: 1.5em; 	height: 0.5em; 	background: #ddd; 	border-radius: 1em;  	.active & { 		animation: slidetoboring 0.4s linear; 	} 	 	.funny & { 		height: 2.5em; 		border-radius: 1em 1em 10em 10em; 		background: #069; 		animation: slidetofunny 0.4s; 		top: 55%; 	} }  @keyframes slidetofunny { 	0% { transform: translateX(0%); } 	50% { transform: translateX(100%); } 	51% { transform: translateX(-100%); } 	100% { transform: translateX(0%); } }  @keyframes slidetoboring { 	0% { transform: translateX(0%); } 	50% { transform: translateX(-100%); } 	51% { transform: translateX(100%); } 	100% { transform: translateX(0%); } }
<span class="wrap-text">boring</span> <div class="wrap"> 	<div class="toggle"> 		<span class="mouth"></span> 	</div> </div> <span class="wrap-text">funny</span>