This raises some of my concerns about the newer more complex smart phones. The firmware ismore complex and there is a higher likelyhood of something going wrong. I also have a 3650, which is sort of a halfway house and the damned thing constantly reboots, leaks memory and generally incites me to buying large blunt objects!
I assume that the software developed in these devices is to the same standard as most of the rest of the industry. To much rush and too little testing. There is a lot to be said for a bog std phone that is just a phone:)
For the last year and a half, I have been using a Motorola A008 which is a simple smartphone. While I didn't expect to find it so useful (I bought it because it was a special offer for 99ukp for a sim free GPRS - ideal spare phone).
The notepad and enhanced contacts are invaluable, as is the keyboard for sms.
Sadly, it recently developed a really weird fault (works when roaming, just not at home!) and to save time I just upgraded to the Treo 600.
Just my first impressions, but it looks like it will prove just as useful, though not always as convenient, but I can put multilingual dictionaries on it which is a great use for me. mobile email is also a consideration.
All in all, so long as the phone side isn't made too difficult, some of us can make good use of smart phones. However, if all you want is a nice decent phone, there are many simpler and more convenient devices on the market.
If the information is stored on a loopback encrypted filesystem on a removable device (ie. USB memory drive) then you get a lot more physical security.
This still doesn't prevent someone installing 'spies' that will copy your data when it is mounted, though. While hard, physical access to the machine can help facilitate it.
Although this relies on trusting the server admins. The longer info is on the server, the more likely it is that someone will also 'stumble' onto it. If this info is really confidential, they consideration should be made to encrypting it before emailing.
Storing the encrypted mails on the machine would mostly serve his purpose, if they were only decrypted for reading (tho remember the swap...:) )
Did I say this was about Open Source? All I said is that I was fed up with people making purile and insulting comments about work that other people were providing. Since this was a thread about such a program I doubt anyone can say that was offtopic.
I am quite relaxed, but would be most gratified if more people actually read comments they replied to. Either that, or not bring their apparently obvious prejudices with them.
As for being an 'elitist ass', there are a number of things that I could say to such an insult, but don't really think I feel like going down to your level. You accuse the open Source community of prejudice, but seem to show at least as much yourself against it! That combined with saying you write closed source code to run on a system that has only been supplied to you by the Open nSource community really does make you look just a little bit of a hippocrite.
I too write commercially for MacOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris, BSD, Sybian etc. I have been writing commercially for the last 20 years. I know the value of both closed and open source and have no problem using either.
A community like this can only work and have value if people add value, not flamebait or trolls. It is these people I find annoying and have seen damage/. in the last few years. It is the same type of person that have nearly killed forums like Kuroshin. They are vandals, nothing more or less. Instead of spraycans, they try to provoke flamewars or otherwise swamp the valid comments under detritus.
Agreed, for the most parts, and I sometimes think I am a rarity who has just about every current browser (and some less current) installed to check for compatibility.
However, there are frequently applications where clients, rightly or wrongly (I suspect you view coincides with mine) wish to target specifice IE or whinedoze features.
In addition, remember, the majority of readers for a general use website will be coming from a whinedoze box, whether with IE, Moz, NS or Opera. Developing the pages natively on the whinedoze box makes more sense than rabidly saying that it should all run on Linux/BSD/Solaris (as I know more than a few developers like this).
As regards standards, I have been able to nuke an ex-hairdresser who once read Teach Yourself HTML in 24 seconds (or somesuch title) and had a go at me for not writing standard HTML. His ignorance and embaressement was well highlighted when I told him which part of the W3 std to look at and he didn't even know that a standard doocument existed:)
If you have something to say, then at least have the courage to use your login name.
As regards getting a life, I have one. But, I appreciate having a valuable discussion community like/. and using my mod points allows me to give something back to the community even when I don't feel I have anything else of value to contribute to a discussion. The same with metamoderation. I just hope that my participation be constructive
Re:Why vim is better than joe (and obviously emacs
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
Should that not be 'reel programmers', after they have run the spool chucker ??:)
Re:Why vim is better than joe (and obviously emacs
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
All reasons why I love Vim so much and make sure I have it on all my machines be they Linux, Solaris, BSD or WhineDoze
However, Editors like Joe still have their little niche in the software ecosystem since they are small (not sure how big the new one is yet, hope it doesn't make this comment look foolish by dwarfing Emacs:) ), runs on pretty much anything that supports curses and for smaller jobs quick and simple to use.
Much as I like Vi, sometimes there are editing tasks that are more intuatively done in Nedit or Joe
Regarding Emacs users only using a subset of commands, what is wrong with this? In fact, how many Vim users know or use all the commands? Like Emacs, it is safe to say that some commands are little enough used, or complex enough to confuse and lead people to solve the problem another way. For a normal mortal example, take regexes. I have used Vi and Unix style regexes almost every day for the last 15 years. Even so, I still have cause to stop and think about some solutions. Some incantations probably do look like they should be done at midnight under a full moon:)
My argument with an editor has always been practicality. If you can use a subset to get your job done, then why worry is you don't learn anything else?
That is an argument I have used for years. Vi, or a Vi like editor, is on virtually every Unix system in the wild.
However, it is not exactly the easiest of editors to learn (I remember the pain) and can be really frustrating when working on systems that run on Unix and Windows (ie web dev. Server runs (Li|U)nix while the pages are being developed for IE using DreamWeaver and VisualStudio. Having an editor that is similar to the less powerful (I'm almost a Vi zealot:) ) windows offerings can ease frustration and lower blood pressure when you just need to hop to the server to make a few changes.
Every Unix admin and developer should know Vi, but is nice to know that they aren't forced to use it when something else that suits them better is available:)
I was browsing this article armed with moderator points, but the quality of the initial few posters has irritated me enough to make a post myself.
The old hands among us will remember and still have the hidden ability of WordStar keystrokes 'programmed' into our fingers. While many of us have moved on to more powerful editors, we still appreciate that Wordstar like editors give efficient and competent editing capabilities in a small package. There are many of us that don't like drop down menus since we actually spend time writing code and find the action of hunting a mouse menu cumbersome.Deriding these tools because they are DOS like is irrelevant
While I don't often use it, Joe is a good example of this class of editor and I know many people who enjoy using it. While I am firmly in the Vi camp, I enjoy the fact that they have the choice to use a tool that suits them.
However, with the addition of syntax colouring, it may well become my editor of choice (instead of nedit) for when I'm doing multiplatform work and the practical and psychological leap of hopping from a WhineDoze box with Visual Studio to a linux box with Vi (utterly different paradigm) causes tangled fingers (and nerves:) )
(Please feel free to donate large sums to pay for my treatment when windows finally drives me nuts)
On a more general/. rant, over the last few years more an more trolls have invaded our forum. Too many socially defective individuals think that purile comments and insults are somehow witty, even though they have nothing of value to add to the discussion. All too often I see the hard work of developers who are donating their creations to our community belittled by people who I doubt even have the skills of a script kiddy.
Please people, if you have nothing of value to say, then just don't say it.
I suspect it is revisionist history. In today's corporate climate, there is a tendency to conveniently forget about failed or cancelled projects. Shareholders may not like to hear about them. The sources were from Sun themselves back around 95-96. There was a lot of interest in the project at the time since it offered the opportunity for simple and clean execution models for embedded environments. It was sad to see it not come to fruition, but then in the meantime performance of general purpose CPUs increased to a point where it is likely that an emulated system would outperform a small production run processor which would never keep pace technologically.
I don't really have time atm to dig further, but there is some info here: http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~wwwbtb/book/chap21/javaplatfo rm.html concerning JavaChip. It is possible (tho this is a stab in the dark) that the JavaChip did live on in the JavaCard product lines, but this is pure speculation on my part:)
The point I'm trying to make re. the VM is it makes no difference what it was originally developed for. If it is turing complete then it makes absolutely no odds whatsoever. It will implement a virtual platform, and this is independent of the languages. Thus, C#'s relation ship to IL is possibly symbiotic, but it still piggy backs upon the virtual system. The same goes for Java and it's JVM. Any other language implemented targeting the VM is no more, nor less, symbiotic with the VM.
C#.Net is not C#. C# is one language, while C#.Net refers to the language with all the.Net bindings. C# could be implemented outside of.Net and I do believe people are doing so. The.Net framework and its APIs were designed together. While I've nothing to back this up, I was under the impression (years back) that.Net was being developed with VB and J++ in mind for its initial platform languages. The rumour goes that C# only came into prominence when MicroSoft and Sun got to going at eachother with legal 2x4's.
Be that as it may, I have seen nothing convincing to suggest that C# was instrumental in the creation of.Net. From a CS point of view, were this the case, I would risk limiting the ultimate usefulness of.Net by potentially limiting the development opportunities open to developers.
One may as well say that most implementations of any language piggyback upon C since it is likely that the compiler (or tools and libs used to build it) were built in C, as is the OS (which, like a VM, is just another execution environment). Following that argument, then they are all piggybacking off of assembler and a whole roomfull of computerscientists and mathematicians might argue that it all piggybacks (abstractly, but that could be said to be another way of saying 'virtual') on their mathematical models:)
it does piggy back. One of the original intentions for java was to run on native hardware, not a VM. I believe the project was called Oak.
But, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether, or not, the VM was specifically designed for the language - it is just another abstraction layer for execution and thus does piggy back on it. It the designers of a VM have done their job correctly then, specifically designed, or not, it should be turing complete and is an execution model in its own right. Because of this, languages with a similar paradigm should also run on it correctly.
Looking at the.net languages will show this. VB.net and VC++.net have both been modified from their progenitor languages to fit the.net model. They piggy back on it no more, or less than C#.net
I once read in a visual basic for dummies manual (or was it Delphi?): "Trying to write an Operating System in Basic is like trying to fly to the moon in a hot air balloon".
Perhaps if it was filled with the hot hair from the doom-sayers, it would build up enough momentum to get there:)
I suspect that when people talk about the popularity of a language fading, they are really talking about the percentage of developers using it.
This doesn't really tell anyone if the number of people using the language has changed. Given the explosion of programmers in recent years, be they professionally trained, or weekend dabblers, it is likely that they are using the current faddy or new languages, like Java, C# or VisualBASIC (not meant as flamebait; I use them myself when engineering requirements suggest them). This for the most part because their emphasis is on making pretty UIs and not any of the more traditional processing or server applications.
This 'explosion' of users with new languages doesn't mean that the old Fortran, Cobol or C applications will immediately be re-written in BoltsN.Nuts or whatever the latest and greatest is. These people will, quite sensibly, plod along with the tried and tested and will probably even continue developing within these skillsets.
The requirements for these skills may well have stayed the same, while the requirement for GUI apps and amateur (some calling themselves professional) developers has increased.
Before anyone can say a language is dying, lets see the figures. For all we know, these dying languages could even be growing (in numbers, if not percentage). Besides which, who should really give a damn?? If it works for you, use it. If it doesn't, but you're not harmed by it, live with the fact that the Borg haven't yet asssimilated us all:)
Phew!! Thank god for your comment. It saved me a lot of typing:)
On the subject of careless and stupid programmers with C, how about starting a movement to execute people who ignore warnings because they are only 'warnings':)
I agree with much of what you say, but it is unfortunate that these feelings need to be tempered in light of the other programmers who may be around:)
I am one of C's greatest fans and have even (in the dim distant past) gone as far as writing and using my own compilers. However, like most pwerful tools it has its hazards. While more modern systems are usually managed so that a stray pointer is less likely to destroy you hardware, when I started this was not the case. If this was the only threat, then C would still be a good, but arcane, language for general use. However, the advent of the internet has opened up a whole new area of risk that many of the current crop of programmers are just not qualified to handle with a reasonable degree of risk. While changing industry attitudes to put more emphasis on professional qualifications may help this, in the meantime the handholding that managed code provides can reduce the chances of many types of bugs occuring. (At the cost of speed and space - not very elegant to us old-timers).
Not to put all the blame for needing "nanny languages" on inexperienced or poorly trained developers, Management is often at fault. Constant spec changes and reluctance to give proper proper provision for design, analysis and documentation leads to intemperate coding that breaks code security. Managed code allows their incompetence to slide past unaccounted;)
At a low level, I agree that OO is awkward, and that at many other levels, it can lead to ineffcient code, but even I am now beginning to see the value of OO for many applications. As with choosing C over another language, choosing OO over functional or procedural paradigms is a measured engineering descision. Hopefully made by engineers:)
And Kofola has a good caffeine content:) There is also a habit of mixing it with cold black coffee to make an 'iced coffee' drink... Ideal Hacker nutrition
Depending where you go, the big MuckD does have places in Sk. Dunno about BB though but would be surprised if there isn't one skulking around somewhere. Try the local burgers, though. Very different but are actually feeding.
Agree about Nescafe etc. We're buying a new house this summer and on my list of things to drive out with are "coffee(lots of)" !!
Slashdot Mirror
This raises some of my concerns about the newer more complex smart phones. The firmware ismore complex and there is a higher likelyhood of something going wrong. I also have a 3650, which is sort of a halfway house and the damned thing constantly reboots, leaks memory and generally incites me to buying large blunt objects!
:)
I assume that the software developed in these devices is to the same standard as most of the rest of the industry. To much rush and too little testing. There is a lot to be said for a bog std phone that is just a phone
For the last year and a half, I have been using a Motorola A008 which is a simple smartphone. While I didn't expect to find it so useful (I bought it because it was a special offer for 99ukp for a sim free GPRS - ideal spare phone).
The notepad and enhanced contacts are invaluable, as is the keyboard for sms.
Sadly, it recently developed a really weird fault (works when roaming, just not at home!) and to save time I just upgraded to the Treo 600.
Just my first impressions, but it looks like it will prove just as useful, though not always as convenient, but I can put multilingual dictionaries on it which is a great use for me. mobile email is also a consideration.
All in all, so long as the phone side isn't made too difficult, some of us can make good use of smart phones. However, if all you want is a nice decent phone, there are many simpler and more convenient devices on the market.
If the information is stored on a loopback encrypted filesystem on a removable device (ie. USB memory drive) then you get a lot more physical security.
This still doesn't prevent someone installing 'spies' that will copy your data when it is mounted, though. While hard, physical access to the machine can help facilitate it.
Although this relies on trusting the server admins. The longer info is on the server, the more likely it is that someone will also 'stumble' onto it. If this info is really confidential, they consideration should be made to encrypting it before emailing.
:) )
Storing the encrypted mails on the machine would mostly serve his purpose, if they were only decrypted for reading (tho remember the swap...
Did I say this was about Open Source? All I said is that I was fed up with people making purile and insulting comments about work that other people were providing. Since this was a thread about such a program I doubt anyone can say that was offtopic.
/. in the last few years. It is the same type of person that have nearly killed forums like Kuroshin. They are vandals, nothing more or less. Instead of spraycans, they try to provoke flamewars or otherwise swamp the valid comments under detritus.
I am quite relaxed, but would be most gratified if more people actually read comments they replied to. Either that, or not bring their apparently obvious prejudices with them.
As for being an 'elitist ass', there are a number of things that I could say to such an insult, but don't really think I feel like going down to your level. You accuse the open Source community of prejudice, but seem to show at least as much yourself against it! That combined with saying you write closed source code to run on a system that has only been supplied to you by the Open nSource community really does make you look just a little bit of a hippocrite.
I too write commercially for MacOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris, BSD, Sybian etc. I have been writing commercially for the last 20 years. I know the value of both closed and open source and have no problem using either.
A community like this can only work and have value if people add value, not flamebait or trolls. It is these people I find annoying and have seen damage
OUCH!
:)
Guess I asked for that
Agreed, for the most parts, and I sometimes think I am a rarity who has just about every current browser (and some less current) installed to check for compatibility.
:)
However, there are frequently applications where clients, rightly or wrongly (I suspect you view coincides with mine) wish to target specifice IE or whinedoze features.
In addition, remember, the majority of readers for a general use website will be coming from a whinedoze box, whether with IE, Moz, NS or Opera. Developing the pages natively on the whinedoze box makes more sense than rabidly saying that it should all run on Linux/BSD/Solaris (as I know more than a few developers like this).
As regards standards, I have been able to nuke an ex-hairdresser who once read Teach Yourself HTML in 24 seconds (or somesuch title) and had a go at me for not writing standard HTML. His ignorance and embaressement was well highlighted when I told him which part of the W3 std to look at and he didn't even know that a standard doocument existed
Happiness currently fills my sad little life at this point :)
Thanks for the link. My Visual Studion is about to undergo surgery !!
Now that was an editor :)
:)
I seriously loved QEdit and used it instead of the Turbo C. MSC, and Turbo Pascal IDEs.
I even used it for developing on the Sinclair QL (I wrote a sort of serial ftp thingy to make it easy)
Wonder if any of my old FDDs still have it on somewhere??
Get a name :)
/. and using my mod points allows me to give something back to the community even when I don't feel I have anything else of value to contribute to a discussion. The same with metamoderation. I just hope that my participation be constructive
If you have something to say, then at least have the courage to use your login name.
As regards getting a life, I have one. But, I appreciate having a valuable discussion community like
Should that not be 'reel programmers', after they have run the spool chucker ?? :)
However, Editors like Joe still have their little niche in the software ecosystem since they are small (not sure how big the new one is yet, hope it doesn't make this comment look foolish by dwarfing Emacs
Much as I like Vi, sometimes there are editing tasks that are more intuatively done in Nedit or Joe
Regarding Emacs users only using a subset of commands, what is wrong with this? In fact, how many Vim users know or use all the commands? Like Emacs, it is safe to say that some commands are little enough used, or complex enough to confuse and lead people to solve the problem another way. For a normal mortal example, take regexes. I have used Vi and Unix style regexes almost every day for the last 15 years. Even so, I still have cause to stop and think about some solutions. Some incantations probably do look like they should be done at midnight under a full moon
My argument with an editor has always been practicality. If you can use a subset to get your job done, then why worry is you don't learn anything else?
However, it is not exactly the easiest of editors to learn (I remember the pain) and can be really frustrating when working on systems that run on Unix and Windows (ie web dev. Server runs (Li|U)nix while the pages are being developed for IE using DreamWeaver and VisualStudio. Having an editor that is similar to the less powerful (I'm almost a Vi zealot :) ) windows offerings can ease frustration and lower blood pressure when you just need to hop to the server to make a few changes.
Every Unix admin and developer should know Vi, but is nice to know that they aren't forced to use it when something else that suits them better is available :)
The old hands among us will remember and still have the hidden ability of WordStar keystrokes 'programmed' into our fingers. While many of us have moved on to more powerful editors, we still appreciate that Wordstar like editors give efficient and competent editing capabilities in a small package. There are many of us that don't like drop down menus since we actually spend time writing code and find the action of hunting a mouse menu cumbersome.Deriding these tools because they are DOS like is irrelevant
While I don't often use it, Joe is a good example of this class of editor and I know many people who enjoy using it. While I am firmly in the Vi camp, I enjoy the fact that they have the choice to use a tool that suits them.
However, with the addition of syntax colouring, it may well become my editor of choice (instead of nedit) for when I'm doing multiplatform work and the practical and psychological leap of hopping from a WhineDoze box with Visual Studio to a linux box with Vi (utterly different paradigm) causes tangled fingers (and nerves :) )
(Please feel free to donate large sums to pay for my treatment when windows finally drives me nuts)
On a more general /. rant, over the last few years more an more trolls have invaded our forum. Too many socially defective individuals think that purile comments and insults are somehow witty, even though they have nothing of value to add to the discussion. All too often I see the hard work of developers who are donating their creations to our community belittled by people who I doubt even have the skills of a script kiddy.
Please people, if you have nothing of value to say, then just don't say it.
Of course, then there is always the issue of older machines being less power efficient; Perhaps reusing them could be considered not green at all :)
I suspect it is revisionist history. In today's corporate climate, there is a tendency to conveniently forget about failed or cancelled projects. Shareholders may not like to hear about them. The sources were from Sun themselves back around 95-96. There was a lot of interest in the project at the time since it offered the opportunity for simple and clean execution models for embedded environments. It was sad to see it not come to fruition, but then in the meantime performance of general purpose CPUs increased to a point where it is likely that an emulated system would outperform a small production run processor which would never keep pace technologically.
o rm.html concerning JavaChip. It is possible (tho this is a stab in the dark) that the JavaChip did live on in the JavaCard product lines, but this is pure speculation on my part :)
.Net bindings. C# could be implemented outside of .Net and I do believe people are doing so. The .Net framework and its APIs were designed together. While I've nothing to back this up, I was under the impression (years back) that .Net was being developed with VB and J++ in mind for its initial platform languages. The rumour goes that C# only came into prominence when MicroSoft and Sun got to going at eachother with legal 2x4's.
.Net. From a CS point of view, were this the case, I would risk limiting the ultimate usefulness of .Net by potentially limiting the development opportunities open to developers.
:)
I don't really have time atm to dig further, but there is some info here: http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~wwwbtb/book/chap21/javaplatf
The point I'm trying to make re. the VM is it makes no difference what it was originally developed for. If it is turing complete then it makes absolutely no odds whatsoever. It will implement a virtual platform, and this is independent of the languages. Thus, C#'s relation ship to IL is possibly symbiotic, but it still piggy backs upon the virtual system. The same goes for Java and it's JVM. Any other language implemented targeting the VM is no more, nor less, symbiotic with the VM.
C#.Net is not C#. C# is one language, while C#.Net refers to the language with all the
Be that as it may, I have seen nothing convincing to suggest that C# was instrumental in the creation of
One may as well say that most implementations of any language piggyback upon C since it is likely that the compiler (or tools and libs used to build it) were built in C, as is the OS (which, like a VM, is just another execution environment). Following that argument, then they are all piggybacking off of assembler and a whole roomfull of computerscientists and mathematicians might argue that it all piggybacks (abstractly, but that could be said to be another way of saying 'virtual') on their mathematical models
it does piggy back. One of the original intentions for java was to run on native hardware, not a VM. I believe the project was called Oak.
.net languages will show this. VB.net and VC++.net have both been modified from their progenitor languages to fit the .net model. They piggy back on it no more, or less than C#.net
But, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether, or not, the VM was specifically designed for the language - it is just another abstraction layer for execution and thus does piggy back on it. It the designers of a VM have done their job correctly then, specifically designed, or not, it should be turing complete and is an execution model in its own right. Because of this, languages with a similar paradigm should also run on it correctly.
Looking at the
I once read in a visual basic for dummies manual (or was it Delphi?): "Trying to write an Operating System in Basic is like trying to fly to the moon in a hot air balloon".
:)
Perhaps if it was filled with the hot hair from the doom-sayers, it would build up enough momentum to get there
I suspect that when people talk about the popularity of a language fading, they are really talking about the percentage of developers using it.
:)
This doesn't really tell anyone if the number of people using the language has changed. Given the explosion of programmers in recent years, be they professionally trained, or weekend dabblers, it is likely that they are using the current faddy or new languages, like Java, C# or VisualBASIC (not meant as flamebait; I use them myself when engineering requirements suggest them). This for the most part because their emphasis is on making pretty UIs and not any of the more traditional processing or server applications.
This 'explosion' of users with new languages doesn't mean that the old Fortran, Cobol or C applications will immediately be re-written in BoltsN.Nuts or whatever the latest and greatest is. These people will, quite sensibly, plod along with the tried and tested and will probably even continue developing within these skillsets.
The requirements for these skills may well have stayed the same, while the requirement for GUI apps and amateur (some calling themselves professional) developers has increased.
Before anyone can say a language is dying, lets see the figures. For all we know, these dying languages could even be growing (in numbers, if not percentage). Besides which, who should really give a damn?? If it works for you, use it. If it doesn't, but you're not harmed by it, live with the fact that the Borg haven't yet asssimilated us all
Phew!! Thank god for your comment. It saved me a lot of typing :)
:)
On the subject of careless and stupid programmers with C, how about starting a movement to execute people who ignore warnings because they are only 'warnings'
I agree with much of what you say, but it is unfortunate that these feelings need to be tempered in light of the other programmers who may be around:)
;)
:)
I am one of C's greatest fans and have even (in the dim distant past) gone as far as writing and using my own compilers. However, like most pwerful tools it has its hazards. While more modern systems are usually managed so that a stray pointer is less likely to destroy you hardware, when I started this was not the case. If this was the only threat, then C would still be a good, but arcane, language for general use. However, the advent of the internet has opened up a whole new area of risk that many of the current crop of programmers are just not qualified to handle with a reasonable degree of risk. While changing industry attitudes to put more emphasis on professional qualifications may help this, in the meantime the handholding that managed code provides can reduce the chances of many types of bugs occuring. (At the cost of speed and space - not very elegant to us old-timers).
Not to put all the blame for needing "nanny languages" on inexperienced or poorly trained developers, Management is often at fault. Constant spec changes and reluctance to give proper proper provision for design, analysis and documentation leads to intemperate coding that breaks code security. Managed code allows their incompetence to slide past unaccounted
At a low level, I agree that OO is awkward, and that at many other levels, it can lead to ineffcient code, but even I am now beginning to see the value of OO for many applications. As with choosing C over another language, choosing OO over functional or procedural paradigms is a measured engineering descision. Hopefully made by engineers
So, by that argument, shouldn't Java and C# both have been stillborn? Both piggy back on VMs and are the same 'weird' combination?? :)
And Kofola has a good caffeine content :) There is also a habit of mixing it with cold black coffee to make an 'iced coffee' drink... Ideal Hacker nutrition
:)
Depending where you go, the big MuckD does have places in Sk. Dunno about BB though but would be surprised if there isn't one skulking around somewhere. Try the local burgers, though. Very different but are actually feeding.
Agree about Nescafe etc. We're buying a new house this summer and on my list of things to drive out with are "coffee(lots of)" !!
All other food and beer are great though
Really want to bet on that?? Slovakia has some of the best beer I've had:)
Beware the Brussels ring road....