You mean the same Chrome that is on version 12 and has only been available to the public for two years? If IT is afraid of increasing major version numbers, Chrome is the last piece of software they should be looking at.
So you give your users a "Cognos" application as a wrapper around the officially supported version of Gecko/WebKit/Trident/etc. and let them use the latest and greatest web browser for the general web. I don't know where the idea of one single web browser to rule them all came from.
Even if you don't use Google's services directly, it is hard to find a website that doesn't include Google Ads or Google Analytics, including Slashdot.
Very true, but the original parent was talking about Mac development. Also, iOS has ARC now, which is not a whole lot different than GC from the developer's perspective.
Why would I give up my managed environment and want to worry about de-constructors and managing resources.
Cocoa's evolution goes way back to the early 80s, so it does have some cruft. However, Objective-C on the Mac has included garbage collection for quite a long time. Managing resources is really a non-issue in the parent's case.
What I find most interesting about Cocoa is how many recent projects have been inspired by the API. Cappuccino, SproutCore, and SNAP to name a few. While I personally have nothing bad to say about Windows development on.NET, I do find it interesting that nobody has really adapted the API outside of Windows. Mono does to some extent, but typically use their own frameworks where compatibility is not needed.
> Farmers should be humane to the livestock out of simple self interest.
Most farmers are. When cattle are your livelihood, you have to treat them as well as possible. Any injuries, sickness, etc. as a result of abuse only lead to lesser profits and ultimately a farm that goes out of business. You simply cannot afford to abuse your animals, even if you wanted to.
The one exception seems to be massive corporate farms where it is impossible to ensure every last employee cares for the animals and any abuse is not noticeable to the bottom line because of the scale. While I certainly do not condone the abuse, I do feel consumers also need to do their part in choosing their vendors carefully.
No. It was a poor growing year last year for much of the corn belt. Areas in the US midwest that normally grow 300 bushels per acre were seeing less than 100 bushels per acre. That is a significant amount of corn lost from normal expectations.
Let's not forget that it was less than a year ago that corn was approaching 10 year record lows!
Unfortunately, your code example does not say anything. You have omitted the function name, which would give the purpose of the function. Your variables do not describe what they hold. You have magic numbers. In english, we call that gibberish. It doesn't mean we should comment our gibberish, it means we should write more succinctly.
Jailbreaking uses security flaws to run unsigned code. The same flaws can be used for malicious purposes. It is most definitely a security issue.
While most jailbreaking methods do require the phone to be tethered to a computer which greatly reduces the chances of infection in the wild, there have been at least two well known untethered jailbreak methods that could have been used to install malicious code quite easily.
While the parent was talking about the iPad specifically, iOS itself is not limited to touch screen devices. The AppleTV runs iOS without a touch screen.
Why not? Third party developers might have trouble writing an IDE that is distributable via the App Store, but Apple themselves are under no such restrictions. iOS is basically OS X at its core, so there is no underlying technical limitations preventing development on the iPad. The form factor my be less comfortable, but the bluetooth keyboard resolves most of the problem.
When does that information become useful? If the code works, it simply doesn't matter what the author was thinking when he wrote it. If the code doesn't work, you have to find a better way to do it. Again, it doesn't matter what the author was thinking.
Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to improve my craft. Refactoring and improving other people's code is something I love to do, so I read quite a bit of code written by others. I have never once wished there were comments and often wish there were no comments because they make comprehension more difficult.
Again, what value does the comment add when the code says it all?
I do agree with you if you do have to write some obfuscated mess as a performance optimization or other justifiable reason. But there is no reason to do that for the vast majority of your code in almost all situations. In those cases, comments are just noise.
Averages are tricky. There are a lot of people on this earth who will never own a car. Most of them, in fact. Four does seem very low for the regular car buying American in my opinion.
I haven't met many self-taught programmers who understand stuff like Big O notation
I can understand people not understanding the notation's symbols and minute details, but surely every programmer, nay, every person, understands the basic concepts? My favourite description is (paraphrasing, with apologies to the original author): Big O is the reason we walk to the mailbox, drive to the store, and fly across the country.
Interesting. You might actually be on to something.
I was reading some justifications for code comments the other day, and I'm thinking to myself that when working on other people's code, I always go straight to the code and completely ignore comments, even when they are present and done well. Of the languages I am familiar with, unless someone tried really hard to go out of their way to obfuscate the code, reading and comprehending is as easily as doing the same with any english prose. It amazes me that people would actually want some kind of Coles Notes version of the code when it is right there for the reading.
If what you say is true, that would go a long way to explain why so many feel over-judicious use of comments is vitally important.
Instead they waste their time and money on them with the perceived notion that it would lead to better jobs. When you sell a dream, people will happily buy into it. Just look at how many regularly "invest" in the lottery, even though there is no evidence to support that they will ever win.
Some people will land good jobs because of their certifications and some people will win the lottery, which helps to solidify the benefits of the idea in others, even if it will never benefit them personally. The whole "that guy did well getting a degree/certification/lottery ticket, therefore I will also do well by getting one."
The success of IT certifications and undergraduate educational services says nothing about the effectiveness of the end result. With that said, you need to go in the direction your heart takes you and if that includes getting an IT certification, there is nothing wrong with doing that. You might even get lucky as a result.
Advertising would go a lot further than a degree. Advertising will bring the jobs to you, and cost less in the process. Finding a job is just plain marketing – nothing more, nothing less.
As I noted in some of my other posts, I believe education, including the formal variety, is very valuable. It is only the idea that formal education will pave the way to future financial success that is flawed. If your only goal is to become rich, you are wasting your time in school. I find it disconcerting that so many will defend higher education as a way to riches when there are so many other great reasons to be there that aren't based on questionable statistical interpretations and general myths. The quest for knowledge and personal betterment should be reason alone to get people into the classrooms, no?
You implied in your original post that the degrees led to better jobs and your follow up talked about how education is an investment in finding a high paying career and that your friends are only doing well in their careers because of their degrees. I am pointing out that your assumptions are not based on any real evidence and are most likely incorrect.
The qualities in your friends that allowed them to succeed in getting a degree are the same qualities that enabled them to find a high paying job. Your dropout friends were not born with those qualities and therefore will have a much more difficult time finding a high paying job, even if you handed them their degree on a silver platter.
If someone is born to be successful, they might get a degree along the way, but the degree will not be what determines their success. They will still be successful if they decide to not obtain a degree.
I was really referring to jobs that require the act of engineering in the dictionary sense. You don't need any formal education or certification to do the job of an engineer, you just can't take on the same legal responsibilities.
The fact remains that going to college is not going to automatically put you into a high skilled, well paying, and stable job. If you have what it takes to find a high skilled, well paying, and stable job, you will find one no matter what kind of paper you have hanging on your wall. You cannot buy success, you are either born with the attributes necessary to become successful or you are not. No amount of "investing in your future" is going to change your genes.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the same Chrome that is on version 12 and has only been available to the public for two years? If IT is afraid of increasing major version numbers, Chrome is the last piece of software they should be looking at.
So you give your users a "Cognos" application as a wrapper around the officially supported version of Gecko/WebKit/Trident/etc. and let them use the latest and greatest web browser for the general web. I don't know where the idea of one single web browser to rule them all came from.
Even if you don't use Google's services directly, it is hard to find a website that doesn't include Google Ads or Google Analytics, including Slashdot.
Very true, but the original parent was talking about Mac development. Also, iOS has ARC now, which is not a whole lot different than GC from the developer's perspective.
All Anonymous Coward posts default to 0.
Cocoa's evolution goes way back to the early 80s, so it does have some cruft. However, Objective-C on the Mac has included garbage collection for quite a long time. Managing resources is really a non-issue in the parent's case.
What I find most interesting about Cocoa is how many recent projects have been inspired by the API. Cappuccino, SproutCore, and SNAP to name a few. While I personally have nothing bad to say about Windows development on .NET, I do find it interesting that nobody has really adapted the API outside of Windows. Mono does to some extent, but typically use their own frameworks where compatibility is not needed.
> Farmers should be humane to the livestock out of simple self interest.
Most farmers are. When cattle are your livelihood, you have to treat them as well as possible. Any injuries, sickness, etc. as a result of abuse only lead to lesser profits and ultimately a farm that goes out of business. You simply cannot afford to abuse your animals, even if you wanted to.
The one exception seems to be massive corporate farms where it is impossible to ensure every last employee cares for the animals and any abuse is not noticeable to the bottom line because of the scale. While I certainly do not condone the abuse, I do feel consumers also need to do their part in choosing their vendors carefully.
No. It was a poor growing year last year for much of the corn belt. Areas in the US midwest that normally grow 300 bushels per acre were seeing less than 100 bushels per acre. That is a significant amount of corn lost from normal expectations.
Let's not forget that it was less than a year ago that corn was approaching 10 year record lows!
Unfortunately, your code example does not say anything. You have omitted the function name, which would give the purpose of the function. Your variables do not describe what they hold. You have magic numbers. In english, we call that gibberish. It doesn't mean we should comment our gibberish, it means we should write more succinctly.
Jailbreaking uses security flaws to run unsigned code. The same flaws can be used for malicious purposes. It is most definitely a security issue.
While most jailbreaking methods do require the phone to be tethered to a computer which greatly reduces the chances of infection in the wild, there have been at least two well known untethered jailbreak methods that could have been used to install malicious code quite easily.
You can already compile and run whatever you wish on your iOS device if you are a registered developer. Nothing would change on that front.
While the parent was talking about the iPad specifically, iOS itself is not limited to touch screen devices. The AppleTV runs iOS without a touch screen.
The parent was talking about iPads. Though obviously iOS could be theoretically installed on the full line of Mac equipment, as the article suggests.
Why not? Third party developers might have trouble writing an IDE that is distributable via the App Store, but Apple themselves are under no such restrictions. iOS is basically OS X at its core, so there is no underlying technical limitations preventing development on the iPad. The form factor my be less comfortable, but the bluetooth keyboard resolves most of the problem.
When does that information become useful? If the code works, it simply doesn't matter what the author was thinking when he wrote it. If the code doesn't work, you have to find a better way to do it. Again, it doesn't matter what the author was thinking.
Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to improve my craft. Refactoring and improving other people's code is something I love to do, so I read quite a bit of code written by others. I have never once wished there were comments and often wish there were no comments because they make comprehension more difficult.
What about Nickleback? Oh wait, that just reenforces your point.
Again, what value does the comment add when the code says it all?
I do agree with you if you do have to write some obfuscated mess as a performance optimization or other justifiable reason. But there is no reason to do that for the vast majority of your code in almost all situations. In those cases, comments are just noise.
Averages are tricky. There are a lot of people on this earth who will never own a car. Most of them, in fact. Four does seem very low for the regular car buying American in my opinion.
I can understand people not understanding the notation's symbols and minute details, but surely every programmer, nay, every person, understands the basic concepts? My favourite description is (paraphrasing, with apologies to the original author): Big O is the reason we walk to the mailbox, drive to the store, and fly across the country.
Interesting. You might actually be on to something.
I was reading some justifications for code comments the other day, and I'm thinking to myself that when working on other people's code, I always go straight to the code and completely ignore comments, even when they are present and done well. Of the languages I am familiar with, unless someone tried really hard to go out of their way to obfuscate the code, reading and comprehending is as easily as doing the same with any english prose. It amazes me that people would actually want some kind of Coles Notes version of the code when it is right there for the reading.
If what you say is true, that would go a long way to explain why so many feel over-judicious use of comments is vitally important.
Instead they waste their time and money on them with the perceived notion that it would lead to better jobs. When you sell a dream, people will happily buy into it. Just look at how many regularly "invest" in the lottery, even though there is no evidence to support that they will ever win.
Some people will land good jobs because of their certifications and some people will win the lottery, which helps to solidify the benefits of the idea in others, even if it will never benefit them personally. The whole "that guy did well getting a degree/certification/lottery ticket, therefore I will also do well by getting one."
The success of IT certifications and undergraduate educational services says nothing about the effectiveness of the end result. With that said, you need to go in the direction your heart takes you and if that includes getting an IT certification, there is nothing wrong with doing that. You might even get lucky as a result.
Advertising would go a lot further than a degree. Advertising will bring the jobs to you, and cost less in the process. Finding a job is just plain marketing – nothing more, nothing less.
As I noted in some of my other posts, I believe education, including the formal variety, is very valuable. It is only the idea that formal education will pave the way to future financial success that is flawed. If your only goal is to become rich, you are wasting your time in school. I find it disconcerting that so many will defend higher education as a way to riches when there are so many other great reasons to be there that aren't based on questionable statistical interpretations and general myths. The quest for knowledge and personal betterment should be reason alone to get people into the classrooms, no?
You implied in your original post that the degrees led to better jobs and your follow up talked about how education is an investment in finding a high paying career and that your friends are only doing well in their careers because of their degrees. I am pointing out that your assumptions are not based on any real evidence and are most likely incorrect.
The qualities in your friends that allowed them to succeed in getting a degree are the same qualities that enabled them to find a high paying job. Your dropout friends were not born with those qualities and therefore will have a much more difficult time finding a high paying job, even if you handed them their degree on a silver platter.
If someone is born to be successful, they might get a degree along the way, but the degree will not be what determines their success. They will still be successful if they decide to not obtain a degree.
I was really referring to jobs that require the act of engineering in the dictionary sense. You don't need any formal education or certification to do the job of an engineer, you just can't take on the same legal responsibilities.
The fact remains that going to college is not going to automatically put you into a high skilled, well paying, and stable job. If you have what it takes to find a high skilled, well paying, and stable job, you will find one no matter what kind of paper you have hanging on your wall. You cannot buy success, you are either born with the attributes necessary to become successful or you are not. No amount of "investing in your future" is going to change your genes.