IMO, once you move beyond manipulating primitive types, that is, once you start using things like arrays or some C 'struct'-like grouping of data you *are* using objects. Now you can either use good OOP for your purpose not so good OOP (it ain't just a river in Egypt).
This may well come as a complete shock to many of those involved in the production and development of software.
But its true, so I'm going to lay it on you.
Most people do not use software for the sake of using software.
I Know. I can hear you cry and see your tears. Get over it.
Strange as it seems, they use software to get stuff done. Its a tool. They learn the tool to get stuff done. They setup up processes that incorporate the use of those tools to get even more stuff done. And then *poof*... iPhones! Woo!
If you're constantly changing the tool, you're constantly changing the way people have to get their stuff done and constantly upsetting the process and increasing the cost of getting stuff done.
Try this for a mantra:
What do we Want? Gradual Change!
When do we want it? IN DUE COURSE!
Change is good, I'm on board. But take care how you fuck things up in the name of progress. Understand that yes, in some peoples view your wonderful improvement is fucking things up, and they are not in error. That doesn't mean your idea isn't great, it just means you probably haven't thought it through well enough. That said...
Usually people tossing out these ideas have little idea what they're talking about, with respect to what it would take to achieve.
OK, this is turning into recreational bitching (turning into?).
I have two shorter answers to this question, one polite, one less so
Yeah, but tho fscking old codgers are nothing but full of 'backtalk'. They think they know better than the recently matriculated management just because they've been around for 20 years. Un-be-lieveable.
The etymology of the word is not generally agreed upon. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says it is based on the German Scheißer (literally "shitter" but also used to refer to deceivers),[1] but the Oxford English Dictionary describes it as "of obscure origin", possibly deriving from a historical sense of "shy" meaning disreputable.[2] Various false etymologies have suggested an anti-Semitic origin, but there is no proof for that.[3] One source claims that the term originated in Philadelphia in 1843 from a disreputable attorney named "Schuster."[4]
If both party's motives are pure, they should have no problem with one.
Well, if someone asks for a pre-nup he or she is already considering divorce to be a event with a rather high likelyhood. Is it really smart to marry someone who considers divorce a likely event?
It means nothing of the sort. It means they understand that life isn't a fairy tale, that anything is possible in human relations and that includes divorce, like it or not. Is it really smart to marry someone who lives in a fantasy land where bad things like divorce don't happen? Or worse, just don't happen to them because they're somehow special?
Likelihood isn't the issue. Possibility is. Its always possible.
If they really want to bring in the masses, the PGA should switch to much smaller courses with less walking (say, something that fits near a mall) and lots of obstacles like Windmills and Castles and little bridges and slopes and... wait, there's something familiar about this...
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. And that's why you post AC.
hmmm... nailed it.
Sorry, pal, its just the way things are, like it or not.
Stupid people are the majority and evil people, though the minority, are in power and always have been.
I mean, I read somewhere that's just a myth.
Or maybe as the quote for one of those motivational posters you see hanging around cube farms.
Or better yet, the inside of the eyelids of every human who even thinks about writing computer programs.
*rim-shot*
IMO, once you move beyond manipulating primitive types, that is, once you start using things like arrays or some C 'struct'-like grouping of data you *are* using objects. Now you can either use good OOP for your purpose not so good OOP (it ain't just a river in Egypt).
But its true, so I'm going to lay it on you.
Most people do not use software for the sake of using software.
I Know. I can hear you cry and see your tears. Get over it.
Strange as it seems, they use software to get stuff done. Its a tool. They learn the tool to get stuff done. They setup up processes that incorporate the use of those tools to get even more stuff done. And then *poof*... iPhones! Woo!
If you're constantly changing the tool, you're constantly changing the way people have to get their stuff done and constantly upsetting the process and increasing the cost of getting stuff done.
Try this for a mantra:
What do we Want?
Gradual Change!
When do we want it?
IN DUE COURSE!
Change is good, I'm on board. But take care how you fuck things up in the name of progress. Understand that yes, in some peoples view your wonderful improvement is fucking things up, and they are not in error . That doesn't mean your idea isn't great, it just means you probably haven't thought it through well enough. That said...
Usually people tossing out these ideas have little idea what they're talking about, with respect to what it would take to achieve.
OK, this is turning into recreational bitching (turning into?).
I have two shorter answers to this question, one polite, one less so
And the thread is saved! Good work, doc.
I had never thought of it that way before... advertising as a means to help clean the gene pool.
Everyone knows the new Boo word is "Socialist!"
Wow. I have to wonder whats wrong with the people who work for you, in that they continue to work for you.
I so wish I had mod points today.
Yeah, but tho fscking old codgers are nothing but full of 'backtalk'. They think they know better than the recently matriculated management just because they've been around for 20 years. Un-be-lieveable.
"That's the way we've always done it" is a really bad reason to do, well, anything. In fact, its worse than bad, its no reason at all.
Note the relevant bit: Various false etymologies have suggested an anti-Semitic origin, but there is no proof for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Etymology
The etymology of the word is not generally agreed upon. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says it is based on the German Scheißer (literally "shitter" but also used to refer to deceivers),[1] but the Oxford English Dictionary describes it as "of obscure origin", possibly deriving from a historical sense of "shy" meaning disreputable.[2] Various false etymologies have suggested an anti-Semitic origin, but there is no proof for that.[3] One source claims that the term originated in Philadelphia in 1843 from a disreputable attorney named "Schuster."[4]
Actually, just beware people
Damn, where are those mod points when I need 'em.
It's sad how many "programmers" I meet who have never even typed "make" let alone more interesting things like readelf and strace.
That's just elitism.
Wow, who knew Ben Affleck reads Slashdot?!
If both party's motives are pure, they should have no problem with one.
Well, if someone asks for a pre-nup he or she is already considering divorce to be a event with a rather high likelyhood. Is it really smart to marry someone who considers divorce a likely event?
It means nothing of the sort. It means they understand that life isn't a fairy tale, that anything is possible in human relations and that includes divorce, like it or not. Is it really smart to marry someone who lives in a fantasy land where bad things like divorce don't happen? Or worse, just don't happen to them because they're somehow special? Likelihood isn't the issue. Possibility is. Its always possible.
FTFY
Ding! Ding ! Ding! Ding!
You just nailed it spot on.
Perhaps this is why we call them 'users' (and why we're the 'other' industry that refers to its customers as 'users').
If they really want to bring in the masses, the PGA should switch to much smaller courses with less walking (say, something that fits near a mall) and lots of obstacles like Windmills and Castles and little bridges and slopes and ... wait, there's something familiar about this...
What? No link to the documentary on youtube?
Bit optimistic, no?