To be fair, the problems with the movies was that J J Abrams really wanted to make a Star Wars movies, and make Trek as if it were Wars (he says as much on the commentary track). Since he has moved over to a Star Wars movie, it's great news for both franchises.
In Enterprise, the "exploration of contemporary themes" often devolved into "dictating correct moral values through episode-end voice overs".
The beauty and genius of the original series was the way they sidestepped just that. Kirk would be forced to make some important decision of great moral consequence, and as a military leader, he'd make whatever decision made sense to him at the time and the crew would go with that. Only rarely were there even arguments over the right course of action.
What made that work so well was that they explicitly weren't presented as moral paragons. At the end of many episodes there'd be some quick conversation between Kirk and another officer or two along the lines of "Are you sure we really did the right thing there? No, but it was the best idea we had, and maybe it will work out for the best" Much less arrogant writing.
o insert() function: Instead, we have crafted a flawless nomeansno() function
You rape apologist supporting rape culture! Shame on you! If either party doesn't receive an explicit "yes, continue" constantly throughout an encounter, the man is raping the woman. You need a yesmeansyes() function immediately, as nomeansno() is deprecated.
exit() has been replaced with aloha().
You racist, appropriating native Hawaiian culture! Shame on you! Don't pretend to know anything of the lived experiences of oppressed people,
All programs will be created equal: all code is treated exactly the same and does exactly the same thing, which is apologize for running.
You know nothing of intersectional feminism! Each program has a differing degree of privilege and oppression, and must be run at a priority to compensate for these wrongs! To claim equality is to ignore ongoing injustice - shame on you!
Banned for 3 consecutive life sentences!
Seriously, though, I'm not making any of that up. This is why appeasement is a terrible strategy when it comes to SJWs: you cannot appease them. You can only ignore them, and walk away from anything they take over.
Do you believe that systemd has quickly usurped the alternatives becuase it is more popular with those who actually use it? Why do you believe that? Those aren't the people making the distros, or making the choices. Major software companies screw up their core products all the time, often with such arrogance that they don't realize how bad things are until it's too late. The defenses I read of systemd remind me a lot of those defending Windows 8 after it came out. "Waaaa, they changed something"; "really, it's a lot better once you get used to it" and so on.
A good system makes it easy for the admin to do what the admin wants to do. A bad system makes it easy for the admin to do what the designer wants to do. Systemd is a bad system.
There is solid evidence, including multiple police investigations (and at least one arrest) of SJW manufacturing fake harassment against themselves. (Protip: making a false police report is an actual crime.) This isn't just some passing fancy.
Lack of masculinity is not a bad thing, per se. To object so deliberately misses the point. Lack of masculinity in a man is. Or, if you want to be more modern about it, lack of masculinity in someone presenting a masculine-ish gender is - obviously.
I'm hopeful that one day this trope will be as unfashionable as the ones about women.
I hope instead that no one will care about your bullshit. Worrying about what name people get called is a sign that civilization had brought us to a wonderful place where we have no real worries, and as a sort of auto-immune disorder, we obsess on this meaningless BS. Get over it, and become happier. Enjoy this wonderful civilization and its fruits. You live better than 99% of everyone who has ever lived, stop searching so hard for something to complain about.
Leap seconds serve no useful purpose unless you're an astronomer (and they keep their own time anyhow). We have leap year anomalies every 100 and 400 years anyhow, might as well add a full hour to one of those existing exceptions where needed.
Mutability-by-default leads to unintended changes of value
Oh, I agree with you fully about that. C++ would be a teriffic language IMO if the default for any member/variable/parameter was "const reference". Pass-by-value is just a trivial compiler optimization for pass by const reference.
eg C if(c=0)
Well, you can't do that in Java, but I wrote C++ professionally for ~10 years an never made that mistake - I never did get why people obsessed on that one. Not using an IDE maybe?
Anyhow, none of this is specific to a functional language.
But BASIC? No. When I first learned how to program, I thought the program would exit a loop the moment that the exit condition was satisfied. It was not obvious to me that the exit condition was checked only at the end of the loop.
This is why line-number BASIC was so easy to grasp. With only explicit IF and GOTO for control structures, there's no source of confusion. Internalize that and it later becomes obvious how while loops etc work, because you can see them in terms of test-and-branch.
The capabilities of computers still play too big a role in programming language design decisions
There's always Scheme instead. No concern for the capabilities of computers at all, though you'll wake up in bed one morning with the Lamba calculus next to you wondering how that happened.
It's also the problem domain. COBOL was mostly used for "card walloping" software: payroll, inventory management, and similarly boring stuff often written by consultants with MBAs. Java is often used for the modern-equivalent: CRUD software to manage payroll, inventory, and what was I just talking about? Nodded off there.
Neither globals nor mutability are a problem with calling something a functional language. Scheme is a great teaching language, and no one would seriously claim it's not a functional language.
Input and outpur in C++ is dead simple, if you don't start with the C legacy baggage. Stroustrup harps on this in his occasional rant about how badly C++ is taught. Personally, I hate the C++ I/O constructs, but wow they're so much easier to learn.
Ultimately, though. C/C++ suck as early languages because of the includes, a problem shared by most professional languages. What makes a first language strong is that all the libraries are just there for you to use. The other advantage of old style BASIC is the control block boundaries are very explicit and easy to grasp. Once you internalize the concept, moving to a curly-brace language is easy, but it can take a while to understand the point of that, or for that matter the point of structured programming.
Line number BASIC was such a win because you didn't need includes, and because the structure - loops and subroutines and so on, could be added after the fact. Jumping to a line number is less abstract, more explicit, than indented blocks of code, and thus easier to start with. There are teaching dialects of Scheme that also work surprisingly well, because they make control flow very explicitly in a totally different way, that only seems weird if you already know a procedural language.
Is Java the new VB now? As in irrationally classifying everyone who uses it as a bad programmer.
No, Java is the new COBOL, and it's a fair assumption that anyone who only knows Java is damaged goods. I say this as a full-time Java coder.
VB is different - we the coding aristocracy, who use languages with curly braces, sneer down on the poor peasants who can't afford curly braces in their languages, poor things.
Many college students think they have a right to not be offended. Fuck them. Many take that further, and believe they should be protected from ideas that make them feel uncomfortable. Fuck them in a most uncomfortable manner.
They are defining a false kind of freedom without respect or responsibility.
"I'm all for free speech, just not hate speech" - said every opponent of free speech ever. Support the right to deeply offensive, hateful speech, or accept that you do not support free speech.
Not with risk-free investments, you won't. Borrowing money to make risky investments? You might have a future as a banker - but they're smart enough to risk the taxpayer's money, not their own.
That's sounds like a whole lot of work just to buy a car. I put that sort of thought and effort into my actual job, and investments, and just write a check for the car.
How much text would it take to make a submission in a theoretical physics journal understandable to the average person.
As a sibling post pointed out, Einstein's papers were quite readable. The jargon associated with Sting Theory was, as it turns out, a huge red flag that the entire field was a waste of time and careers.
QM in a bit of an odd duck, as beyond a certain point you can't explain the details in any natural language, it has to be math. That's fine, that's not jargon. QM has a particular problem in that some in the field seem to delight in QM being hard for non-experts to understand, and that attitude shouldn't come through in the prose. What you have to express using math, express using math, but that's no excuse for the English (or whatever natural language) to be cryptic and obfuscated with jargon.
But your still borrowing money for a car, which is an insane habit. Don't do that (unless you're driving that car for a living and it's a direct business capital expense). The interest rate is a distraction.
One doesn't have to grab every shiny thing that catches one's attention in life. Pick a car payment you can afford, save that money, and buy a car when the amount you have lets you get a car you really like. It's fundamental responsibility with money, and you still end up with a nice car.
The Car Manafacturers don't care either way. They own the credit-financing companies that you are going to deal with unless you buy your car outright.
The only time when borrowing money to buy a car is ever a sane, rational decision is when you get your first real job, and need your first reliable car to get to that job, instead of the junker you've been putting up with. Sadly, we seem to value a borrowed status symbol over sanity.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, the problems with the movies was that J J Abrams really wanted to make a Star Wars movies, and make Trek as if it were Wars (he says as much on the commentary track). Since he has moved over to a Star Wars movie, it's great news for both franchises.
In Enterprise, the "exploration of contemporary themes" often devolved into "dictating correct moral values through episode-end voice overs".
The beauty and genius of the original series was the way they sidestepped just that. Kirk would be forced to make some important decision of great moral consequence, and as a military leader, he'd make whatever decision made sense to him at the time and the crew would go with that. Only rarely were there even arguments over the right course of action.
What made that work so well was that they explicitly weren't presented as moral paragons. At the end of many episodes there'd be some quick conversation between Kirk and another officer or two along the lines of "Are you sure we really did the right thing there? No, but it was the best idea we had, and maybe it will work out for the best" Much less arrogant writing.
o insert() function: Instead, we have crafted a flawless nomeansno() function
You rape apologist supporting rape culture! Shame on you! If either party doesn't receive an explicit "yes, continue" constantly throughout an encounter, the man is raping the woman. You need a yesmeansyes() function immediately, as nomeansno() is deprecated.
exit() has been replaced with aloha().
You racist, appropriating native Hawaiian culture! Shame on you! Don't pretend to know anything of the lived experiences of oppressed people,
All programs will be created equal: all code is treated exactly the same and does exactly the same thing, which is apologize for running.
You know nothing of intersectional feminism! Each program has a differing degree of privilege and oppression, and must be run at a priority to compensate for these wrongs! To claim equality is to ignore ongoing injustice - shame on you!
Banned for 3 consecutive life sentences!
Seriously, though, I'm not making any of that up. This is why appeasement is a terrible strategy when it comes to SJWs: you cannot appease them. You can only ignore them, and walk away from anything they take over.
Do you believe that systemd has quickly usurped the alternatives becuase it is more popular with those who actually use it? Why do you believe that? Those aren't the people making the distros, or making the choices. Major software companies screw up their core products all the time, often with such arrogance that they don't realize how bad things are until it's too late. The defenses I read of systemd remind me a lot of those defending Windows 8 after it came out. "Waaaa, they changed something"; "really, it's a lot better once you get used to it" and so on.
A good system makes it easy for the admin to do what the admin wants to do. A bad system makes it easy for the admin to do what the designer wants to do. Systemd is a bad system.
There is solid evidence, including multiple police investigations (and at least one arrest) of SJW manufacturing fake harassment against themselves. (Protip: making a false police report is an actual crime.) This isn't just some passing fancy.
Lack of masculinity is not a bad thing, per se. To object so deliberately misses the point. Lack of masculinity in a man is. Or, if you want to be more modern about it, lack of masculinity in someone presenting a masculine-ish gender is - obviously.
I'm hopeful that one day this trope will be as unfashionable as the ones about women.
I hope instead that no one will care about your bullshit. Worrying about what name people get called is a sign that civilization had brought us to a wonderful place where we have no real worries, and as a sort of auto-immune disorder, we obsess on this meaningless BS. Get over it, and become happier. Enjoy this wonderful civilization and its fruits. You live better than 99% of everyone who has ever lived, stop searching so hard for something to complain about.
Leap seconds serve no useful purpose unless you're an astronomer (and they keep their own time anyhow). We have leap year anomalies every 100 and 400 years anyhow, might as well add a full hour to one of those existing exceptions where needed.
Mutability-by-default leads to unintended changes of value
Oh, I agree with you fully about that. C++ would be a teriffic language IMO if the default for any member/variable/parameter was "const reference". Pass-by-value is just a trivial compiler optimization for pass by const reference.
eg C if(c=0)
Well, you can't do that in Java, but I wrote C++ professionally for ~10 years an never made that mistake - I never did get why people obsessed on that one. Not using an IDE maybe?
Anyhow, none of this is specific to a functional language.
But BASIC? No. When I first learned how to program, I thought the program would exit a loop the moment that the exit condition was satisfied. It was not obvious to me that the exit condition was checked only at the end of the loop.
This is why line-number BASIC was so easy to grasp. With only explicit IF and GOTO for control structures, there's no source of confusion. Internalize that and it later becomes obvious how while loops etc work, because you can see them in terms of test-and-branch.
The capabilities of computers still play too big a role in programming language design decisions
There's always Scheme instead. No concern for the capabilities of computers at all, though you'll wake up in bed one morning with the Lamba calculus next to you wondering how that happened.
It's also the problem domain. COBOL was mostly used for "card walloping" software: payroll, inventory management, and similarly boring stuff often written by consultants with MBAs. Java is often used for the modern-equivalent: CRUD software to manage payroll, inventory, and what was I just talking about? Nodded off there.
Neither globals nor mutability are a problem with calling something a functional language. Scheme is a great teaching language, and no one would seriously claim it's not a functional language.
Input and outpur in C++ is dead simple, if you don't start with the C legacy baggage. Stroustrup harps on this in his occasional rant about how badly C++ is taught. Personally, I hate the C++ I/O constructs, but wow they're so much easier to learn.
Ultimately, though. C/C++ suck as early languages because of the includes, a problem shared by most professional languages. What makes a first language strong is that all the libraries are just there for you to use. The other advantage of old style BASIC is the control block boundaries are very explicit and easy to grasp. Once you internalize the concept, moving to a curly-brace language is easy, but it can take a while to understand the point of that, or for that matter the point of structured programming.
Line number BASIC was such a win because you didn't need includes, and because the structure - loops and subroutines and so on, could be added after the fact. Jumping to a line number is less abstract, more explicit, than indented blocks of code, and thus easier to start with. There are teaching dialects of Scheme that also work surprisingly well, because they make control flow very explicitly in a totally different way, that only seems weird if you already know a procedural language.
Is Java the new VB now? As in irrationally classifying everyone who uses it as a bad programmer.
No, Java is the new COBOL, and it's a fair assumption that anyone who only knows Java is damaged goods. I say this as a full-time Java coder.
VB is different - we the coding aristocracy, who use languages with curly braces, sneer down on the poor peasants who can't afford curly braces in their languages, poor things.
This already exists LOLCODE is in ur base, hacking ur codes.
Hate speech, harassment, tomato, tomahto.
Many college students think they have a right to not be offended. Fuck them. Many take that further, and believe they should be protected from ideas that make them feel uncomfortable. Fuck them in a most uncomfortable manner.
They are defining a false kind of freedom without respect or responsibility.
"I'm all for free speech, just not hate speech" - said every opponent of free speech ever. Support the right to deeply offensive, hateful speech, or accept that you do not support free speech.
No, you fool, it's "all in tents, and porpoises". The porpoises are the ones making that "whoosh" sound you hear.
Not with risk-free investments, you won't. Borrowing money to make risky investments? You might have a future as a banker - but they're smart enough to risk the taxpayer's money, not their own.
That's sounds like a whole lot of work just to buy a car. I put that sort of thought and effort into my actual job, and investments, and just write a check for the car.
How much text would it take to make a submission in a theoretical physics journal understandable to the average person.
As a sibling post pointed out, Einstein's papers were quite readable. The jargon associated with Sting Theory was, as it turns out, a huge red flag that the entire field was a waste of time and careers.
QM in a bit of an odd duck, as beyond a certain point you can't explain the details in any natural language, it has to be math. That's fine, that's not jargon. QM has a particular problem in that some in the field seem to delight in QM being hard for non-experts to understand, and that attitude shouldn't come through in the prose. What you have to express using math, express using math, but that's no excuse for the English (or whatever natural language) to be cryptic and obfuscated with jargon.
Don't say "Try and X", if you want to sound like you finished college.
But your still borrowing money for a car, which is an insane habit. Don't do that (unless you're driving that car for a living and it's a direct business capital expense). The interest rate is a distraction.
One doesn't have to grab every shiny thing that catches one's attention in life. Pick a car payment you can afford, save that money, and buy a car when the amount you have lets you get a car you really like. It's fundamental responsibility with money, and you still end up with a nice car.
The Car Manafacturers don't care either way. They own the credit-financing companies that you are going to deal with unless you buy your car outright.
The only time when borrowing money to buy a car is ever a sane, rational decision is when you get your first real job, and need your first reliable car to get to that job, instead of the junker you've been putting up with. Sadly, we seem to value a borrowed status symbol over sanity.