Pretty much. And the issue is that tabs gone wrong is only visible once its viewed by someone with different settings.
Not exactly true. You can pretty easily write a tool that scans a source module for problematic mixing of tabs and spaces. Just require that all changes pass that scan before they are allowed to be checked in.
You can. I can. Most devs can. OTOH we can simply avoid the problem altogether and use spaces.
Which only matters if all indentation, including alignment, is done with tabs. The moment you throw in a few spaces to line something up on a non-tab boundary (say, to align a second line of arguments with the first argument), then you have a mess, unless your tab width is set to exactly the value that whoever touched the code before you set it to.
What?? Nonsense. Using spaces to line something up on a non-tab boundary is exactly what avoids a mess, not creates it.
To use tabs in code, with zero problems whatsoever, follow these simple rules:
1. Use tabs only for indentation, never for alignment.
2. Tabs may never appear anywhere in the source code except as a contiguous sequence of zero or more tabs at the beginning of a line.
3. Use spaces for alignment, never for indentation.
4. Spaces may follow tabs, but tabs may never follow spaces.
All the lines in your module should match the following regex:/^\t*[^\t]*$/
If you have a for (...) loop that splits across three lines, there should be n tabs leading up to the for, and then on each of the following two lines there should be n tabs followed by 5 spaces, for proper alignment.
So instead of simply using spaces, use these four rules, one of which is a regexp to get the effect of only using spaces when using tabs....
In addition, your last example still breaks readability when tab-widths are not what you expect them to be. Spaces will maintain what you want the code to look like regardless of what settings someone else's editor has.
Just look at how their resume is formatted. If it's wrong, you don't even have to invite them.
Mine is PDF from LaTeX - so of course I use spaces because irrespective of how you think my resume should be formatted, it's gonna damn well look the same on all platforms, in all viewers and on all printouts... just like my code. Consistency beats customisability every time when reading code.
As a fairly experienced and slightly wrinkly and grey developer, can anyone tell me why spaces over tabs?
Tabs allow the developer to customise their IDE to display the amount of indentation they desire... and use fewer bytes... spaces seem to have no benefits whatsoever in my book.
Because code that looks like this is more readable than code that looks like this. Sure you can spend extra effort to line up your code using tabs in a way that doesn't break on someone with a different tabstop, but why bother when spaces do it with no extra effort?
Why try to argue that with me when I make it abundantly clear that I don't make that claim?
Because, your statement was that "No one implied that they deserved it", when in fact they have.
Link to a comment that makes that claim. You can only find a link to ACs?
That's why I replied to you. To point out that your statement was factually inaccurate.
Lovely - Now I am responsible for the meanderings of random ACs in a separate thread? No one, in this thread, "implied that they deserved it". Actually, from a brief squizz through the comments I seem unable to find someone making that claim that the victims "deserved" it, other than ACs.
Because an egregious violation of someone's privacy that's can be traumatizing as a sexual assault is a minor thing.
No, it cannot.
In a sexual assault you've had your naked body viewed and touched by one person without your consent.
In revenge porn an intimate moment with your naked body has been viewed by thousands or even millions of people without your consent, possibly including many people in your social circle.
Yes, it absolutely can be as traumatizing as a sexual assault.
I'd like to see you tell a sexual assault survivor that her ordeal was as bad as someone looking at her naked photos.
Then reply to them not to me - I haven't made that claim nor have I implied it. Why try to argue that with me when I make it abundantly clear that I don't make that claim?
When you're in a hole, stop digging. It doesn't matter that more males than females kill tmemselves. What matters is that some people, mostly girls/women are driven to suicide because they are ashamed of something others have published about them. There is no way to make that sound okay, whatever the other statistics are.
Society "drives" more men to suicide than women. Much much more. No claiming of "mostly women" is going to change that, and no amount of posturing is going to make it okay.
Blimey, it really is incompetence in your case, isn't it? I was replying to your specific post.
this wasn't to me, yet you respond as if it was. Once again, before you go around accusing people of incompetence you might consider a remedial English class.
You said something, and I replied. This is not very difficult logic to follow. Well, not for most of us.
Too hard for you, though. My point still stands - parity as a goal is stupid, hence the qualifiers.
I've re-read that a couple of times, and it still makes no sense. Parity of treatment, which is what feminists actually argue for, is not the same as "we demand equal numbers of suicides between men and women!", because the latter would be *a really stupid thing* to argue for. Is it malice or incompetence that leads you to put forth weird strawmen?
Firstly, you shouldn't go around accusing people of incompetence when you can't even read the thread properly - I didn't reply to this message yet.
Secondly, as a matter of fact the slightly deranged group of people who keep posting stories about the *numbers* of women in certain jobs/games/industries are, in actual fact, asking for the *numbers* themselves to reflect parity. It's not my damn argument that men and women must be equally represented in $FOO.
It's illogical, irrational and inconsistent to say "parity must be achieved in $FOO, but only when $FOO is one of $BAR, $BAZ and $BAM, but not if $FOO is $CAR, $CAZ or $CAM". You can either choose a consistent viewpoint or (as many here currently do) constantly experience cognitive dissonance.
Well, they deman equality of *results*, sometimes even superiority in many other fields - high paying jobs, political power, legislation benefits.
Really? How many victims of revenge porn have demanded any of these things? All they are asking for is protection from one of the most egregious invasions of privacy imaginable. To imply that they deserve it because of some completely unrelated feminist agenda being pushed by completely different people, is idiotic.
No one implied that they deserved it; that's just how *you* choose to read it, which says more about you than it does about me.
And your point is? This is OK because it somehow karmically redresses the balance so we need to make more girls kill themselves in the name of equality? Or perhaps it's your pet cause and you want the OP to do something about it because your too lazy?
But well done for using some poor girl's suicide as a way to win points on the intenet. Go you.
What was your point? That parity between males and females is not a good thing?
I don't have to - the logic that there must be parity between males and females is currently fully accepted as is with no explanation. The whole "there must be parity" logic is not even mine, I'm just quoting feminists here. Take it up with them not with me.
F*** him. If you could design a test to determine who's better at "critical thinking" I'd bet money that the engineers would out-perform the liberal arts majors.
The trouble is that you're classifying both the Philosophy majors (expert critical thinkers, usually better trained logicians than engineers are) with Gender Studies majors (who are indistinguishable from creationists) under "Liberal Arts", while you are conveniently leaving out the fact that engineers tend to be 4 times more likely than other professions to kill in advance of their belief in an invisible sky friend
I'd take that bet you offer and pit philosophy(formal logic) majors against your A+ or MCSE "engineers". I'd make good money off of you before you wised up.
It has to do with enjoying the sport. The noise servers no purpose other than that it's enjoyable to hear.
Again, WHY? I get that people like it, I just cannot comprehend why.
The same goes for the actual sport actually - just because you don't like $SUBJECTIVE_THING does not mean that it is unreasonable for others to like $SUBJECTIVE_THING. Of course, $SUBJECTIVE_THING in this case is "noises made by powerful combustion engines", but it raises the question of why you see no reason for people to get enjoyment from "noises made by combustion engines" but you seem to see the reason for "watching cars go around a lap for an hour". After all, they're both equally without reason and yet you only question one of them?
We went from 35% of CS degrees going to women in 1985 to about 18% now. That needs to be explained, and if you just look at the data you it will be.
This statement of yours has been explained multiple times yet you still keep saying it. Let me provide the correlation that I provide every single fucking time you say this:
High numbers of women in CS is highly correlated with societies which limits the options for women. Societies that give women more freedom had fewer women in CS, such as Iran, India and USA-circa 1985. Societies that give women more freedom have fewer women in CS, like USA-circa 2015 and most of Western Europe today.
This is like the 5th time you've been told this, the first three times I even linked to the actual charts and numbers. Don't you get tired of being corrected all the time? You should find a new line other than "The difference in numbers from 1985 needs to be explained" because it's been explained to you now repeatedly.
This is tautology. Circular logic. You're saying companies are responsible because you said they were responsible.
No, I'm saying companies should be responsible because they are a social construct, something that society finds beneficial and so allows within certain rules.
Make up your mind - *should* societies force companies to be responsible for this, OR do societies *already allow* this? You're saying both things and they're contradictory.
Even if that is not true what is not in dispute is that he physically assaulted another person and some lines cannot be crossed no matter who you are or what you bring in.
Nobody really believes that "no excuse for violence" canard, do they? The world certainly isn't run that way.
The business world certainly does. You have to be very rich and very powerful to get away with punching a colleague and JC just found out that he's not as powerful as he thought he was. He's like the rest of us - punch colleague, get fired.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much. And the issue is that tabs gone wrong is only visible once its viewed by someone with different settings.
Not exactly true. You can pretty easily write a tool that scans a source module for problematic mixing of tabs and spaces. Just require that all changes pass that scan before they are allowed to be checked in.
You can. I can. Most devs can. OTOH we can simply avoid the problem altogether and use spaces.
Which only matters if all indentation, including alignment, is done with tabs. The moment you throw in a few spaces to line something up on a non-tab boundary (say, to align a second line of arguments with the first argument), then you have a mess, unless your tab width is set to exactly the value that whoever touched the code before you set it to.
What?? Nonsense. Using spaces to line something up on a non-tab boundary is exactly what avoids a mess, not creates it.
To use tabs in code, with zero problems whatsoever, follow these simple rules: 1. Use tabs only for indentation, never for alignment. 2. Tabs may never appear anywhere in the source code except as a contiguous sequence of zero or more tabs at the beginning of a line. 3. Use spaces for alignment, never for indentation. 4. Spaces may follow tabs, but tabs may never follow spaces.
All the lines in your module should match the following regex: /^\t*[^\t]*$/
If you have a for (...) loop that splits across three lines, there should be n tabs leading up to the for, and then on each of the following two lines there should be n tabs followed by 5 spaces, for proper alignment.
So instead of simply using spaces, use these four rules, one of which is a regexp to get the effect of only using spaces when using tabs....
In addition, your last example still breaks readability when tab-widths are not what you expect them to be. Spaces will maintain what you want the code to look like regardless of what settings someone else's editor has.
Just look at how their resume is formatted. If it's wrong, you don't even have to invite them.
Mine is PDF from LaTeX - so of course I use spaces because irrespective of how you think my resume should be formatted, it's gonna damn well look the same on all platforms, in all viewers and on all printouts... just like my code. Consistency beats customisability every time when reading code.
As a fairly experienced and slightly wrinkly and grey developer, can anyone tell me why spaces over tabs?
Tabs allow the developer to customise their IDE to display the amount of indentation they desire... and use fewer bytes... spaces seem to have no benefits whatsoever in my book.
Because code that looks like this is more readable than code that looks like this. Sure you can spend extra effort to line up your code using tabs in a way that doesn't break on someone with a different tabstop, but why bother when spaces do it with no extra effort?
Because, your statement was that "No one implied that they deserved it", when in fact they have.
Link to a comment that makes that claim. You can only find a link to ACs?
That's why I replied to you. To point out that your statement was factually inaccurate.
Lovely - Now I am responsible for the meanderings of random ACs in a separate thread? No one, in this thread, "implied that they deserved it". Actually, from a brief squizz through the comments I seem unable to find someone making that claim that the victims "deserved" it, other than ACs.
So much for your "factually inaccurate" claim...
Because an egregious violation of someone's privacy that's can be traumatizing as a sexual assault is a minor thing.
No, it cannot.
In a sexual assault you've had your naked body viewed and touched by one person without your consent.
In revenge porn an intimate moment with your naked body has been viewed by thousands or even millions of people without your consent, possibly including many people in your social circle.
Yes, it absolutely can be as traumatizing as a sexual assault.
I'd like to see you tell a sexual assault survivor that her ordeal was as bad as someone looking at her naked photos.
Yes, they have.
Then reply to them not to me - I haven't made that claim nor have I implied it. Why try to argue that with me when I make it abundantly clear that I don't make that claim?
When you're in a hole, stop digging. It doesn't matter that more males than females kill tmemselves. What matters is that some people, mostly girls/women are driven to suicide because they are ashamed of something others have published about them. There is no way to make that sound okay, whatever the other statistics are.
Society "drives" more men to suicide than women. Much much more. No claiming of "mostly women" is going to change that, and no amount of posturing is going to make it okay.
Good post - I'll link to it in the future.
Blimey, it really is incompetence in your case, isn't it? I was replying to your specific post.
this wasn't to me, yet you respond as if it was. Once again, before you go around accusing people of incompetence you might consider a remedial English class.
You said something, and I replied. This is not very difficult logic to follow. Well, not for most of us.
Too hard for you, though. My point still stands - parity as a goal is stupid, hence the qualifiers.
I've re-read that a couple of times, and it still makes no sense. Parity of treatment, which is what feminists actually argue for, is not the same as "we demand equal numbers of suicides between men and women!", because the latter would be *a really stupid thing* to argue for. Is it malice or incompetence that leads you to put forth weird strawmen?
Firstly, you shouldn't go around accusing people of incompetence when you can't even read the thread properly - I didn't reply to this message yet.
Secondly, as a matter of fact the slightly deranged group of people who keep posting stories about the *numbers* of women in certain jobs/games/industries are, in actual fact, asking for the *numbers* themselves to reflect parity. It's not my damn argument that men and women must be equally represented in $FOO.
It's illogical, irrational and inconsistent to say "parity must be achieved in $FOO, but only when $FOO is one of $BAR, $BAZ and $BAM, but not if $FOO is $CAR, $CAZ or $CAM". You can either choose a consistent viewpoint or (as many here currently do) constantly experience cognitive dissonance.
Well, they deman equality of *results*, sometimes even superiority in many other fields - high paying jobs, political power, legislation benefits.
Really? How many victims of revenge porn have demanded any of these things? All they are asking for is protection from one of the most egregious invasions of privacy imaginable. To imply that they deserve it because of some completely unrelated feminist agenda being pushed by completely different people, is idiotic.
No one implied that they deserved it; that's just how *you* choose to read it, which says more about you than it does about me.
And your point is? This is OK because it somehow karmically redresses the balance so we need to make more girls kill themselves in the name of equality? Or perhaps it's your pet cause and you want the OP to do something about it because your too lazy?
But well done for using some poor girl's suicide as a way to win points on the intenet. Go you.
What was your point? That parity between males and females is not a good thing?
Why? Go on, explain your logic.
I don't have to - the logic that there must be parity between males and females is currently fully accepted as is with no explanation. The whole "there must be parity" logic is not even mine, I'm just quoting feminists here. Take it up with them not with me.
Not isolated at all, and becoming more common all the time.
Well, male suicides vastly outnumber female suicides, so until there is parity it's pointless to talk about how females suicides are a problem.
A girl at my daughter's high school was a victim of revenge porn. She killed herself.
More males kill themselves than females. Why not blame society for that too?
Because an egregious violation of someone's privacy that's can be traumatizing as a sexual assault is a minor thing.
No, it cannot.
F*** him. If you could design a test to determine who's better at "critical thinking" I'd bet money that the engineers would out-perform the liberal arts majors.
The trouble is that you're classifying both the Philosophy majors (expert critical thinkers, usually better trained logicians than engineers are) with Gender Studies majors (who are indistinguishable from creationists) under "Liberal Arts", while you are conveniently leaving out the fact that engineers tend to be 4 times more likely than other professions to kill in advance of their belief in an invisible sky friend
I'd take that bet you offer and pit philosophy(formal logic) majors against your A+ or MCSE "engineers". I'd make good money off of you before you wised up.
It has to do with enjoying the sport. The noise servers no purpose other than that it's enjoyable to hear.
Again, WHY? I get that people like it, I just cannot comprehend why.
The same goes for the actual sport actually - just because you don't like $SUBJECTIVE_THING does not mean that it is unreasonable for others to like $SUBJECTIVE_THING. Of course, $SUBJECTIVE_THING in this case is "noises made by powerful combustion engines", but it raises the question of why you see no reason for people to get enjoyment from "noises made by combustion engines" but you seem to see the reason for "watching cars go around a lap for an hour". After all, they're both equally without reason and yet you only question one of them?
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
We went from 35% of CS degrees going to women in 1985 to about 18% now. That needs to be explained, and if you just look at the data you it will be.
This statement of yours has been explained multiple times yet you still keep saying it. Let me provide the correlation that I provide every single fucking time you say this:
High numbers of women in CS is highly correlated with societies which limits the options for women. Societies that give women more freedom had fewer women in CS, such as Iran, India and USA-circa 1985. Societies that give women more freedom have fewer women in CS, like USA-circa 2015 and most of Western Europe today.
This is like the 5th time you've been told this, the first three times I even linked to the actual charts and numbers. Don't you get tired of being corrected all the time? You should find a new line other than "The difference in numbers from 1985 needs to be explained" because it's been explained to you now repeatedly.
This is tautology. Circular logic. You're saying companies are responsible because you said they were responsible.
No, I'm saying companies should be responsible because they are a social construct, something that society finds beneficial and so allows within certain rules.
Make up your mind - *should* societies force companies to be responsible for this, OR do societies *already allow* this? You're saying both things and they're contradictory.
The reality is that society needs children.
Too bad. If society wants to encourage children then it needs to get its fucking act together.
CRC's were in my first year of CS, in 1996.
Even if that is not true what is not in dispute is that he physically assaulted another person and some lines cannot be crossed no matter who you are or what you bring in.
Nobody really believes that "no excuse for violence" canard, do they? The world certainly isn't run that way.
The business world certainly does. You have to be very rich and very powerful to get away with punching a colleague and JC just found out that he's not as powerful as he thought he was. He's like the rest of us - punch colleague, get fired.