Subject: For Sufferers of Muffin Tops

From: Blast Away Fat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:49:35 -0700

Does it feel like you watch what you eat and you still dont lose weight?
Thats because your not optimizing your fat loss. 

---------------------------------------------------------
Its not about the Quantity but the Quality of your plan. 
---------------------------------------------------------
AKA you don't need to spend hrs at the Gym. 

DocOz says, Its all about your metabolism. 
Your metabolism might not even be burning off even the healthiest calories
(let alone the bad ones)

Now you can Jump-Start it ....

DocOz presents "High Intensity" Fat Loss
View 1 Step Plan: http://www.zipflu.com/oz/high/intensity/fatloss.index

to stop further wellness notifications - write - Member Update Systems
9167 ROAD 177_Oakwood, OH 45873 or http://www.zipflu.com/35gy/ergt45.3rd33

h up shortcomings in the language" It's not controversial. It's false. Design Patterns describe solutions to problems. Nothing to do with language shortcomings in any way.  patterns describe general solutions to basic problems. But that's also what programming languages and platforms do. So you use design patterns when the languages and platforms you are using do not suffice.    They describe solutions to problems which exist in a given language, yes. There is no Command design pattern in FP languages, because the problem it tries to solve does not exist. Which means that they solve problems that the language itself can't solve. That is, shortcomings in the language  The monad is a mathematical concept, and you're stretching it with your classification. Sure, you can view functions, monoids, monads, matrices or other mathematical concepts as design patterns, but those are more like algorithms and data structures ... fundamental concepts, language independent. agree that monads are in
  fact a mathematical concept but in pure functional programming they are a design pattern for encapsulating mutable state. But if you don't want to except that except that STM is a pattern for managing concurrency. , monads are a math concept, but they are also a pattern. The "FP pattern" of monads is somewhat distinct from the math concept of monads. The former is a pattern used to get around certain "limitations" in pure FP languages. The latter is a universal mathematical concept.  Could you elaborate more on the "singletons are generally a terrible pattern to use"? I'm really curious, no flame intended.   zNote that monads in Haskell are used for other things than mutable state, for example for exceptions, continuations, list comprehensions, parsing, asynchronous programming and so on. But all these application of monads could probably be called patterns. Not much space here, you may want to create a separate question for this. Anyway, google for singletonitis or "singletons con
 sidered harmful". The short version is that singletons make dependencies implicit, can't be tested and overconstrain your code. Why can't I create more than 1 logger?olavk: Yeah, I agree. I only mentioned mutable state because that's a good example of something that's too simple to need a "pattern" in imperative languages. But I agree, all the other uses of monads would also be considered patterns.  How is a Monad a design pattern if it is a type class you can define instances of? If Monad is a design pattern then numbers should also be design patterns in Haskell by that logic. In OO languages you can't just implement the "abstract factory" interface and expect that implementation to actually be an abstract factory... Also I don't see how a Singleton is even applicable to a functional language, there is no notion of objects so how can you talk about Singletons in FP?   Rubendv May 31 '09 at 10:36
	  	
Languages are what they are because they present a particular paradigm. That an OOP language requires a design pattern to solve certain problems is not necessarily a shortcoming of the language. Rather, languages take a particular paradigm (i.e. OOP or FP), and seek to represent that paradigm in the most complete way possible while still being small enough for a programmer to carry around in his head. Suggesting that a language must encompass all problems belies the fact that some people may not wish to work in your problem space (preferring game programming, for example).   Robert Harvey Jun 18 '09 at 0:52
	  	
Another example of how design patterns handle shorcommings in the language: In java you need the Observer pattern. However since C# has event / listeners right in the language you don't need it. So that is just a sample of two pretty similar languages and still a design pattern is irrelevant in the other.   elviejo Oct 21 '09 at 20:06In (pure) functional languages, side effects and mutable state are impossible, unless you work around it with the monad "design pattern", or any of the other methods for allowing the same thing." I spend a lot of time destroying this bullshit myth. This is not enjoyable. It's disheartening to see it pop up again with appraisal.   Tony Morris Sep 17 '10 at 8:53