Slashdot Mirror

> I've come to the conclusion that anyone using the phrase "ivory tower" is probably an idiot with a chip on their shoulder.

Ad hominem much ?

I've come to the conclusion that anyone using the excuse "Implementation details" is probably an idiot teacher who believes the delusion Theory comes before Application.

FTFY.

> you don't understand academic jobs

Spotted the shitty teacher who can't code and tries to justify it.

Computing Science is BOTH Theory AND Application. Academics who teach ONLY theory are literally missing HALF of the equation.

If you were a music teacher you would basically teach Music Theory and say that "Playing the instrument" is just "implementation details." Are you really THAT fucking stupid??????

Theory ALWAYS comes AFTER Application. Application PROVES that the Theory is correct.

We write code for PEOPLE to READ, otherwise we'd still be using assembly.

Do you teach students HOW to name variables?

Do you teach students the pros AND cons of the various indentation style ?

Do you teach people HOW to write CONSTRUCTIVE comments? i.e. Document WHY not the how.

Do you teach students BOTH the and Pros and Cons of various programming paradigms? Do you discuss Functional? Procedural? Why OOP is fine for minimizing coupling, but do you mention that OOP is shit for high performance ?

When you teach Radix Sort do you mention that O(3n) is NOT equal to O(n) in the Real World ? Do you teach HOW to modify Radix Sort to sort float32 numbers? Or do you hand waive that with the bullshit "Left as an exercise for the reader" ?

Do you teach the nine different types of binary searches?

Do you teach the 32 different ways CRC32 can be implemented? Do you mention the 4 that are standardized?

Riiiight, I'm the idiot for calling out the bullshit of Theory without Application is _exactly_ why those in the academic ivory tower tend to be blind.

> No idea if your code examples are formatted wrong

They are formatted correctly.

> and no idea what a stride is, either

Array Stride

The fact that you don't even know what a Stride of an Arrayis shows you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

> Click a random page on Amazone .... there wont be anything in the processor cache of the machine handling your request, relevant to your request.

Total nonsense.

We are not talking about Amazone (2000)

A good programmer realizes that CPU optimization is only ONE part of optimization.

* Network
* Disk (Seek time, throughput, latency)
* Memory (Cache)
* CPU (Registers)

Listed from slowest to fastest -- the slowest access will have the biggest impact if we optimize for that.

> optimizing for the cash made

Maybe you try optimizing for the instruction cache and the data cache instead.

> was the early 1990s.

That would explain why you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Your optimization information is 20+ years out of date.

Here's a modern clue stick:

Pitfalls of Object Oriented Programming

It's 2018... VMS & Unix philosophy was forty years ago.

The fall began a long time ago indeed....

And while in Linux land we are discussing if systemd is bloated or not, in unix land they throw a fit over 'cat' getting to bloated.

http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v...

> the FreeBSD developers clearly respect the UNIX philosophy

Lol! Kernighan and Pike might disagree: http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/

Hmm, didn't realize there was a 'number the lines' option, nor a 'squeeze blank lines' option; both could be useful.

cat -v considered harmful

I suggest you learn a bit about the history and intentions of OO. It's not about message passing, it's about organising data around objects, hence the 3 pillars of OO. They're called the 3 pillars of OO because they're the 3 pillars of OO - the fact you don't even know about their existence really speaks volumes. You may wish to pretend OO is something else but again, that's because you're wrong, not because you're the god you think you are that gets to redefine unilaterally terms for the entire programming community across the globe.

You obviously need some basic computer science education, because you wouldn't even get into university with that level of ignorance of the topic.

OOP stems from Simula, and later Smalltalk - in fact, small talk was the first termed OOP language, hence why those languages that stem from it's ideas are the ones implementing a correct interpretation of OO. The fact you're not aware of this once again highlights why you're exactly the sort of person you cry as bringing the quality of knowledge on Slashdot down - you don't even have a basic grasp of the topic and it's history that you're talking about. You're just saying things because you're a language fanboy, asserting they're right, whilst being actually completely and utterly wrong.

I can see why you're confused on the topic though, Joe Armstrong intentionally misled people like you to allow you to pretend you were doing OO even when he was very clear that you absolutely were not. You basically didn't understand his actual point. Here he explains why they did that, and why Erlang is intentionally not actually OO:

http://harmful.cat-v.org/softw...

Enjoy your education, or continue being wrong on the internet. It's really up to you.

http://harmful.cat-v.org/softw...

I too have worked on a C++ compiler (PS3).

While it sounds like you are very knowledgeable in the first 3, sadly, it sounds like you don't understand the 4th level of optimization aka Data-Oriented-Design. :-/ The levels of optimization are:

1. Use a lower level language
2. Micro-optimization or bit-twiddling
3. Algorithm
4. Macro-optimization or cache-orientated aka Data-Orientated Design

I think you'll enjoy these links:

* Pitfalls of Object Oriented Programming

and

Code Clinic 2015: How to Write Code the Compiler Can Actually Optimize

> or perhaps recoding Java into C++.

Unfortunately, this is the 1st level of optimization by the inexperienced and is the *wrong* place to start.
You need to look at the *data first*, NOT the code before you start optimizing.

Switching implementation languages is (usually) a symptom of NOT understanding the problem.

"Show me your flowchart and conceal your tables, and I shall continue to be mystified.
Show me your tables, and I won't usually need your flowchart; it'll be obvious."
-- Fred Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month.

The modern vernacular paraphrase is:

"Show me your code which obfuscates the data (structures) and it will take a while before I can understand / optimize it.
Show me your data and I won't need to see your code."

Here is my post where I explain the 4 levels of optimizations in greater detail.

>> If you do not know assembly, you cannot be a really good coder
> That is bollocks.

Only shitty programmers are clueless about assembly, which in turn implies they lack an understanding of memory access patterns.

Hint, try *reading*: Pitfalls of Object Oriented Programming

Even Bjarne Stroustrup, the designer of C++, until 2012 was completely cluess _why_ doubly Linked Lists were so slow compared to Arrays

HINT: Managing the L1 Cache usage is critical for performance sensitive code.

Programmers concerned about speed use Data-Orientated Design. For details see CppCon 2014: Mike Acton "Data-Oriented Design and C++"

Knowing when to use, and NOT to use OOP, makes a programmer better. Using design patterns without *thinking* shows others you don't understand programming.

--
Wanted: An Apple 2 Thunderclock Plus peripheral card.

Yes I am suggesting C++ is a lot better. What the fuck does Microsoft and cross platform have to do with anything?

A lot better than what? A kick in the teeth? Yeah, probably; but only just... C++ ain't all that. Actually it was INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED AS A PRANK. In fact, according to the Father of C++ Bjarne Stroustrup, the joke's on YOU... So, enjoy your PRANK of a Language, Suckas!!!!

Ok, so I'll "out" myself before anyone else does...

The "IEEE" interview linked-to above is (well, duh!) a FAKE!

Gas Music From Jupiter, INDEED!!!

But according to the "horse's" website, HERE IS THE REAL INTERVIEW.

Or is it...? (Sorry, couldn't resist)

Yes I am suggesting C++ is a lot better. What the fuck does Microsoft and cross platform have to do with anything?

A lot better than what? A kick in the teeth? Yeah, probably; but only just...

C++ ain't all that. Actually it was INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED AS A PRANK. In fact, according to the Father of C++ Bjarne Stroustrup, the joke's on YOU...

So, enjoy your PRANK of a Language, Suckas!!!!

The issue is the violation of POLA (principle of least astonishment) given that Unix has allowed processes to run after user exit through nohup(1), which dates back to at least 1986:

More like "at least 1975" - nohup dates at least back to V6.

Every programming language sucks. Some just suck less than the rest.

http://harmful.cat-v.org/softw...

> What part of C++ OO imposes runtime performance costs?

Uh, the fact that it is designed for the uncommon single case instead of the common multi case. You want to optimize for the throughput, not latency.

OOP (Object Orientated Programming) has terrible performance scalability since it has terrible D$ (Data Cache) usage. For high performance OOP is completely ditched in favor of DOD (Data Orientated Design). DOD is used heavily in modern game development, and HFT (High Frequency Trading.)

I would recommend starting here:

* Pitfalls of Object Oriented Programming

Even Bjarne Stroustrup was ignorant of D$ usage and how it effects performance:

* Why you should avoid Linked Lists, where someone subtitled it: Stroustrup learns how L1 Cache usage is critical for performance sensitive code.

I would also read Mike Acton's presentation:

* Typical C++ Bullshit

The points are two fold:

1. Naive use of algorithms and OOP without understanding the data flow will always be slower then understanding and optimizing for the (data) cache usage.

Pitfalls of Object Oriented Programming

2. C/C++ compilers do a really shitty job of optimizing even trivial code.

CppCon 2014: Mike Acton "Data-Oriented Design and C++"

Mike demonstrates a simple example where a bool member flag is used as a test. MSVC does a horrible job at O2; Clang does a much better job, but still crappy. (Note: Using a different compiler backend on MSVC wasn't even an option until recently.)

Even a more slightly more complicated example blows up:

struct Foo
{
    bool m_NeedParentUpdate;
    int Bar( int count );
    int Baz( int count );
};
 
int
Foo::Bar( int count )
{
    int value = 0;
    for( int i=0; i < count; i++ )
    {
        if( m_NeedParentUpdate )
        {
            value++;
        }
    }
    return value;
}
 
int
Foo::Baz( int count )
{
    int value = 0;
    for( int i=0; i < count; i++ )
    {
        if( Bar( count ) > 0 )
        {
            value++;
        }
    }
    return value;
}

*Ugh.*

Why am I forced to remove ghost reads and writes and manually hoist common static evaluation out of loops?? Why can't the compiler deduce this information?

As Mike says, the compiler is not a magic wand. It is really good at only a _few_ transformations; it is really stupid about most other ones.

> Modern languages with runtimes like Java, C# (and presumably Swift when it gets its act together) can actually be *faster* than C/C++ in some cases because they have more optimization information at runtime...

Except that high performance code does NOT use OOP; it uses DOD (Data Orientated Design) which is far faster.

* Pitfalls of Object Oriented Programming

* Mike Acton: Code Clinic 2015: How to Write Code the Compiler Can Actually Optimize

No one does C, unless he is forced by someone to do so, people usually do C++.

Uh, have you heard of Linus? A lot of embedded developers prefer C over C++, because there are fewer side effects. Other programmers prefer C over C++ because it has a cleaner design.

Linus Torvalds said that about C++. For some people, there is a very strong C/C++ divide. I think from their perspective (I use C++ but didn't drink the koolaid) C++ encourages you to be lazy (yet overcomplicated!) and they have a point. Every time you type a character into the chrome address bar, there are 25,000 std::strings created. Shit like that wouldn't happen in C.

Maybe in C it's harder to do things, so you need to think about it more and do it correctly.

khellendros1984 gave the link to the Stepanov interview, but there's also this and this and this among many others.

OOP is starting to decline now. It's already dropped out of high-performance computing. While Moore's Law hasn't slowed down yet, the clock speed bubble has burst. RAM is larger than it's ever been, but accessing it is more expensive than it's ever been relative to the CPU speed. All those extra transistors are going into more parallelism (SIMD, ILP, more cores, etc) instead of more cycles per second, and OOP is poorly-equipped to exploit this.

khellendros1984 gave the link to the Stepanov interview, but there's also this and this and this among many others.

OOP is starting to decline now. It's already dropped out of high-performance computing. While Moore's Law hasn't slowed down yet, the clock speed bubble has burst. RAM is larger than it's ever been, but accessing it is more expensive than it's ever been relative to the CPU speed. All those extra transistors are going into more parallelism (SIMD, ILP, more cores, etc) instead of more cycles per second, and OOP is poorly-equipped to exploit this.

Some C++ quotes:

"C++ is the best example of second-system effect since OS/360." – Henry Spencer
"All new features added to C++ are intended to fix previously new features added to C++" – David Jameson

I don't think I've ever heard of Zed talking about how great Ruby on Rails is.

http://harmful.cat-v.org/softw...

Go was developed in large part by Rob Pike who has a long history of concucrrency programming going back to Plan 9 from Bell Labs and earlier.

Some of his more interesting papers about concurrency are:

http://swtch.com/~rsc/thread/n... (The Newsqueak Programming Language)
http://swtch.com/~rsc/thread/n... (Newsqueak Implementation)
https://www.usenix.org/legacy/... (A Concurrent Window System)

You can even see some hints of what was to come in his paper outlining the design of the Blit terminal for Unix:
http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs...

If you don't think Linus has enough C++ experience, how about the man who created of C++ as a hoax, Bjarne Stroustrup:

Interviewer: If we publish this, you’ll probably get lynched, you do realise that?
Stroustrup: I doubt it. As I said, C++ is way past its peak now, and no company in its right mind would start a C++ project without a pilot trial. That should convince them that it’s the road to disaster. If not, they deserve all they get.. You know, I tried to convince Dennis Ritchie to rewrite Unix in C++..
Interviewer: Oh my God. What did he say?
Stroustrup: Well, luckily, he has a good sense of humor. I think both he and Brian figured out what I was doing, in the early days, but never let on. He said he’d help me write a C++ version of DOS, if I was interested..
Interviewer: Were you?
Stroustrup: Actually, I did write DOS in C++, I’ll give you a demo when we’re through. I have it running on a Sparc 20 in the computer room. Goes like a rocket on 4 CPU’s, and only takes up 70 megs of disk..
Interviewer: What’s it like on a PC?
Stroustrup: Now you’re kidding. Haven’t you ever seen Windows ‘95? I think of that as my biggest success. Nearly blew the game before I was ready, though..
Interviewer: You know, that idea of a Unix++ has really got me thinking. Somewhere out there, there’s a guy going to try it..
Stroustrup: Not after they read this interview..

Obviously the BOSS-MULL developers never did read it. You can here.

/Oblg.

Tony Albrecht's excellent Pitfalls of object orientated programing presentation.

The best known standard quip about standards itself has multiple versions and attributions. How meta:

"The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from." - Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, 2nd ed., p. 254

"The nicest thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Ken Olsen

“The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from.” -- Grace Murray Hopper

See also:

Obligatory (but who set that standard?): xkcd : Standards
Why are there so many plugs and sockets?

‘Mediocrity finds safety in standardization.’ -- Frederick Crane
‘It is not enough that X be standard, it should also be good.’ -- Rob Pike (Window Systems Should Be Transparent)
The two above can be found on the cat -v page on standards"
"Standards are like toothbrushes. Everybody wants one but nobody wants to use anybody else’s." -- Connie Morella

Just to add: If you actually need something like C++, you should probably use C.

To the parent: Linus would like a word with you.

TLDP - The Linux Documentation Project. It has links to the Advanced Bash Scripting Guide which can introduce you to the BASH shell and its limitations. Another good read is the Power On to BASH Prompt which, though from last decade, isn't quite out of date.
 
oblig: csh considered harmful

From: http://harmful.cat-v.org/softw...

“Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad idea which could only have originated in California.” — Edsger Dijkstra

“object-oriented design is the roman numerals of computing.” — Rob Pike

“The phrase "object-oriented” means a lot of things. Half are obvious, and the other half are mistakes.“ — Paul Graham

“Implementation inheritance causes the same intertwining and brittleness that have been observed when goto statements are overused. As a result, OO systems often suffer from complexity and lack of reuse.” — John Ousterhout Scripting, IEEE Computer, March 1998

“90% of the shit that is popular right now wants to rub its object-oriented nutsack all over my code” — kfx

“Sometimes, the elegant implementation is just a function. Not a method. Not a class. Not a framework. Just a function.” — John Carmack

“The problem with object-oriented languages is they’ve got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.” — Joe Armstrong

“I used to be enamored of object-oriented programming. I’m now finding myself leaning toward believing that it is a plot designed to destroy joy.” — Eric Allman

OO is the “structured programming” snake oil of the 90' Useful at times, but hardly the “end all” programing paradigm some like to make out of it.

And, at least in it’s most popular forms, it’s can be extremely harmful and dramatically increase complexity.

Inheritance is more trouble than it’s worth. Under the doubtful disguise of the holy “code reuse” an insane amount of gratuitous complexity is added to our environment, which makes necessary industrial quantities of syntactical sugar to make the ensuing mess minimally manageable.

http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/GCC

Putting it in a form that people are familiar with can make it an easier or more entertaining read. I first read Henry Spencer's 10 commandments for C programmers some 30 years ago. It was good then; it is still largely relevant with a few changes, eg: in commandment 10 substitute 'Intel' for 'VAX'; commandment 1: well the 'lint' function is usually available as a high warning level in most compilers.

For crying out loud don't they teach kids any history these days?

See http://glenda.cat-v.org/friends/mark-v-shaney/classics

My personal favourite:

I would like to be present everywhere

Grace is the âoeupdateâ program, which simply issues a sync system call.

Iâ(TM)ve received two pieces of email that imply that somebody recently posted the entire world with a flood, to remove all rational obstacles to believing something revealed by God.

I have to pass a tuple containing the existing Unix technology. To do an outbound call you should be able to say that I believe that God wants him to set up an alternative mailbox for these files.

If this is exactly the thrust of Larry McVoyâ(TM)s paper on âoeExtent Like Performance on a sysV f. s.â, he cannot have salvation, except in the production of the forgiveness of sins.

I would like to be present everywhere.

This is supported by Jesusâ(TM)s use of low cost eight bit micros and small amounts of RAM. When you find salvation.

For the sinner deserves not life but death, according to the disk devices. For example, start with Plan 9, which is free of sin, the case is different from His perspective.

The Roman Church has always been a part of a file system semantics.

Grab the cat torture shit. Lets be real familiar with these braindead but safe solutions. We have to look further into this possible interpretation.

Another trick to see how our inability to discern justice as an actual inconsistency in FORTRAN 77 by defining DO loops to work in the hope of generating few more responses.

Female clergy are widely but not quite.

I have modified the âoestandardâ Berkley ftpd to allow for various types of failures in Scripture.

Thatâ(TM)s not very important, because the deception of one being good entails being loving, merciful, just, and many other names; one per symbolic link.

Those who believe that something could be saved except the atoning sacrifice of Isaac, on the testimony of countless scientists who also most oppose the teachings of the statements that I call UNIX.

ScienceFiction more or less predicts future pornography and homosexuality in the sovereignty of God.

Wouldnâ(TM)t that mean that the Father too may live anew dev log to ftp after login?

Probably first choice of block size on all of their salvation.

If God truly loves humankind then why does He create sinners? If human is His creation, then who is the ultimate in all shells?

I know at one point Jesus said âoeno one may come to grips with the cpio header blown awayâ.

It speaks of the original ftpd.

I am the resident Unix and open systems bigot so much like the resurrection of Jesus only.

Geoff modified relaynews to write an essay on prayer.

dvips for DVI files should run on the testimony of countless scientists who also most oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church through no fault of his posting, in which the idea that it passes the diagnostics.

And I get real turned on by a good English translation of the Bible; because there is sufficient response I would want to change the nature of the points of Catholic theology would immediately have to be God and satan who is a free variable :â")

Christian theology is not seek optimization, which the means pertain, as was said above

Good. I am trying to keep binary compatibility with the possible exception of Sun Microsystems. Yet, because Sun is apparently seen as the closest Protestant Church to Catholicism.

That observation doesnâ(TM)t get one anywhere. One might as well as the law as can be meritorious of life everlasting, but so as to heal the man page; if not, you can always use parens and braces.

On a SVR4, I am interested in building a list of names and addresses to be in the name of Martin Luther, who led the religious reformatio

> No need to create tensions with dinosaurs like Linus. I'm happy with using C++ for applications only for now and leave system to C.

AFAIK you wouldn't be able to use C++ in Linux kernel coding, even if you wanted to, since Linus has disallowed it.
See: http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus

The disk I/O latency can at least for HDDs be reduced if each application statically compiles in its libraries. I think Plan 9 actually does this, see http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/. There is a comparison of the file sizes of some command line tools there, but it would be interesting to know the binary size difference between statically and dynamically linked binaries for modern GUI apps that are using libraries like GTK or QT.

if i came through as resorting to personal attacks, i'm sorry, that was honestly not my intention. sure, there's some sarcasm in there, i'll gladly admit that, but it's just my way of expressing myself. i'm used to conversing in this manner (and sometimes i forget that not all are used to this tone..)

And I apologize for my tendency to speak in generalities and lump people together - no particular "personal attacks" came from you.

No one should be blamed for "not giving a rat's ass about my opinion" - I just write the things that I think deserve to be written.

(The "go back to writing html css javascript..." comment struck a bit of a nerve, but only due to my own insecurities... I haven't done much but scripting since the 90s, while I'd rather be writing more serious software in C, or at least Go/Rust/Nimrod... But the in-browser software stack is a universal standard that I am forced to accept.)

I do appreciate criticism, sarcasm, and passionate self-expression - it's the "shut up, troll" stuff (from other people) that should be avoided.

if it was the incoherency comment, it was a bit hard to follow your line of thought hopping from pointing out the (faultily) large dependency list...

My first post, while not wrong, was poorly researched. It was based on a single piece of anecdotal evidence that atypically turned out not to be representative of how XBMC is packaged on other OS'es. The purpose of that post was not to present a well-rounded review of XBMC, and it was clear that I was talking about that specific observation on FreeBSD. I don't comment on every piece of software that I don't use, but I thought that particular observation was interesting enough to give voice to. From the purist point of view, the criticism of "software bloat" still applies to XBMC as it's packaged for other OS'es, but that is far less noteworthy.

I'm obviously presenting a specific point of view, and one that is admittedly not very popular. I am trying to practice and evolve a software philosophy that values simplicity, modularity, and reuse of common components. I am also biased against software that is not permissively licensed, and am trying to make things work while using as few of those components as possible. Some copyleft components, like mplayer/ffmpeg and Web browser dependencies, cannot yet be avoided, but the amount of unavoidable copyleft code needed for a functional UNIX desktop / workstation is gradually shrinking.

...to spawning mplayer through a web browser (which has much more deps - we have resorted from pulling in webkit for that very reason), which surely embeds more scripting languages and has an even higher complexity than xbmc.

I didn't want to simply badmouth XBMC for being 100MB of "GUItard GNUshit" (parody quotes); I also wanted to presented my alternative vision for how a Media Center app ought to be designed. Or, rather, it was two perspectives that sort of melted together. The first one is that "you don't need it" - one can use decentralized media tools and script them together for any desired effect. The second perspective was access to all your media via Web-based app / apps (which of course can run locally).

That first perspective comes from the minimalist unixbeard perspective, which is a minority, even on Slashdot. I just can't imagine having a keyboard very far away from me at any time. Even when relaxing on the couch and watching video on the big screen, reaching for a laptop on the tray table right in front of me (which I occasionally do anyway if I'm on IRC, etc) takes less time than reaching for a dumbremo

Alright, so I'm a grouchy minimalist unixbeard. And XBMC is a perfect example of the kind of an app that people like me have no use for. If you're its developer - please don't take my bah-humbugging personally. You can't please everybody. I've stated my opinion of XBMC, and why I'd rather script together my own media center that uses mplayer (see above). But, as HTML5+ video advances, it won't just be people like me...

you have a beef with the build system on freebsd

Of course my opinion of XBMC was affected by how it's packaged for my OS, as would be the case for any user. This may indeed be a very rare example of bad packaging for FreeBSD (I've contacted the port maintainer). But, looking at the far more flexible ebuild, it's clear that some fraction of my criticism remains valid.

i'm sure that if you reduced xbmc to a mere media player (i.e. extracted our dvdplayer), you could get us down to mplayer in terms of deps.

Now you're just being silly. To go pound-for-pound against mplayer (or ffplay), you'd have to rewrite xbmc from scratch in C, not C++/Boost + Python.

--libman

http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/ruby/rails/is-a-ghetto I would have thought they'd gentrified by now.

Reading Linux Torvalds on C++ might be instructive:
http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus

The most secure modern operating systems you can get are OpenBSD or FreeBSD. They are based on stable mature open source, and don't have the bloat and featureitus problems of Linux.

--libman

> Small children can detect the difference between these two scenarios; but to some people they are equivalent. I have no clue why that that is.

It is because they are lawyers and politicians. They are impervious to logic or reality.

Everyone else, once they think a bit about it, can see that "intellectual property" is an oxymoron.

The thrill of the TSA circus!

Other than that, nobody should care. Copying is how humanity has progressed over history.

So called "intellectual property" is an oxymoron, it is not compatible with either real private property or free markets, while benefiting just a few at the expense of everyone else.

I could be wrong, but I doubt the Linux kernel ever used anything C++ related, given the strong opinion Linus has about the language

Exactly, patents are government granted monopolies by definition and by design.

Honeywell is using them precisely the way they are meant to and the way they have always been used through history, from the steam engines to Apple.

Yes, patents are supposed to encourage innovation, but by creating monopolies they archive precisely the opposite.

He should be complaining about how stupid and counterproductive the so call intellectual property system is, not about some other company that is not Apple doing what Apple and almost everyone else has been doing all along.

So much hypocrisy.

How many times do we need to repeat "Security Circus"?

Given all the TSA has got away with so far, it is clear they can do whatever the fuck they like and face no consequences at all.

The Java is too fundamentally broken to be fixed, the world would be better off if it was completely deprecated.

I've been looking beyond PHP for a while, and Go seems like a reasonably good programming language (albeit not entirely comparable to languages like PHP) for web applications. Activity around Go isn't *crazy* but there are quite a few resources for what was a "beta" language up till now.

It also seems like Google is giving the project a good distance (note that the official website doesn't mention Google anywere apart from the occasional video), which I think is a good thing.

Anyone here ever used Go for anything serious?

The amazing thing is that even before the first stable release is out quite a few organizations are using Go in production to run real systems. Very impressive:

http://go-lang.cat-v.org/organizations-using-go