Programs are getting too complex for humans to understand
We need more powerful tools to manage the complexity
You are the tool. We are the tools. Our job as programmers is to "manage complexity". To take a complex problem and mangle it away into a layer of abstraction so that we can comfortably work with it. Of course, some programmers take that too far and make 50 gazillion layers that shouldn't be there, but that's a different discussion entirely.
You silly neo-cons/tea* make lance armstrong and richard nixon look like boy scouts that tell simple white lies.
And this is what's wrong with society. Some people supposedly lie/exaggerate the truth/say something objectionable, and immediately some douche from who knows where decides that they only did it because "they must be neo-cons/tea*" Or however the fuck you interpret that positively awful sentence of yours. That's as bad as a racial/ethnic/religious stereotype being attributed to some random trait or action.
But then again, I don't blame you because I know you're doing it as an act of intellectual desperation. You, and people like you, will use any opportunity or example to try to reinforce your ridiculous partisan politics and the hatred that comes along with it. People like you are why we can't have nice things as a society.
The javascript project is not my primary target, so I don't have, nor do I wish to have, special tools specific to JS.
That's just silly. "This is my only project in language A. Therefore I won't get any tools that help me program in language A". If you're too lazy to download a free IDE and install it for the single project you are working on, then you deserve to suffer trying to use that programming language. Right tools for the right job, and if you can't bother to work smarter then you're just screwing yourself over.
Because he's part of the ruling class. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can have the "free and just" society that statist people incessantly drone on and on about.
There are other alternatives. Some of us can recognize the value of government spending that doesn't directly benefit me, but benefits society in ways that may benefit me or my decendents(sic) in the future.
Of course... But to me that sounds like "spend more on things that I think will benefit me/society/my descendants." You can sugar-coat what you say with all the good intentions in the world, but it doesn't change the fact that what you think and what others think could be two completely separate things because they're based on opinion. And the only way to resolve that is by forcing your majority will, or special interest group powers onto the rest of us who happen to be part of the minority.
It would be nice if I could find a non-statist, who is *also* not a corporatist. Unfortunately all the non-statists I've ever heard of are devout corporatists.
Ah yes, that old re-hashed tripe. Bet you think you sound all hip and cool using the word "corporatist", huh? Channeling the inner hippy, eh? I suggest you go and re-read your statist manual on "how to dismiss those pesky free-thinkers before they convince enough people of their own inherent rights".
On a more serious note, here is an actual definition of "corporatism": "the control of a state or organization by large interest groups." By that definition, you could say that society is already controlled by large interest groups. And the state then gives them power to wield their beliefs over the rest of society.
The problem is that most of the people who claim to want small government really mean: spend less on everything except the things that benefit me.
And that is better than those that say "spend more on things that benefit me"? That's a race upwards; to add bloat. Whereas the other one you mentioned is more of a race to the lowest amount of funding possible. What I'm trying to say is that it's all too easy to "spend more on what benefits me" because the cost of that is spread across the entire population and no thought is required. But it's a hell of a lot more difficult to justify and prove the need for items that require us to take away funding from other items, or to simply justify a reduction in spending on a certain wasteful/unneeded item. And that's one of the big traits of the political system: practically no one dares to be the bad guy that rocks the boat by saying or trying to reduce unnecessary funding. Because _some_ group, doesn't matter which one will proceed to tear that politician a new one in the media. This is democracy, this is populism.
So they're idiots for not wanting to live surrounded by skyscrapers.
No, I'd say they are idiots for blaming others for the things they themselves are partly to blame for. I'm referring to the building and property zoning laws. Hell, you know democracy, I'm sure. If majority rules, then everyone shares blame. That also means not singling anyone out, like these cretins are doing to some random engineer who happens to work for a company that they currently find fashionable to hate or are be jealous of.
I know inflation is seen as the tool of the devil today - but if you have a 200,000 BTC 30-year loan (for example) on a house that you're paying back over time then, as I understand it, it becomes in *harder* to pay it back (in 30 years the remaining value will be worth more than it was when you started rather than the other way around).
If the value of the currency was rising, then yes you could say that the "value" that you have to pay off is increasing. However, you can't look at it in isolation. The interest rates will be different, probably higher. Not to mention people will be less inclined to borrow money precisely because of what you mention. It may make a lot of economic sense in a deflationary scenario for people to rent + save until they can buy their own property. As opposed to borrowing + living in the same apartment as they slowly pay it off.
In the end it's up to the individual people to decide what their priorities are, how risk-averse they are and what course of action to take as a result of that.
What an absolutely ridiculous way to butt in your opinions of "stand your ground" laws. Completely off-topic to both the article and the AC comment you responded to when you initially brought it up.
I wasn't talking about the "inefficiency" of the code. There's more to code than just how fast it runs. That has it's place, but most of the time, it is dwarfed by more important factors to consider.
I had a look at the rest of the code. Granted, it's a tad better than what you posted, but it is still ridiculously amateurish... He should definitely submit some of it here.
Therefore we should simply kill them. Afterall, it would improve productivity and enhance cash flow.
I never said that. Geeze, way to overblow and misconstrue things to get your opinions heard. I'm not going to bother trying to have a discussion with you next time. Any old idiot can take single sentences out of context to make their point. Good day.
I tried to explain that this is not the case to this guy I know who makes well into 6 figures (he'll never let anyone forget that). He thinks anyone on welfare should die on the streets because they are just sub human leeches, and there should be no such thing as welfare in the first place. "It's everyone's responsibility to go out and get a good job and make lots of money. Anyone can do it! If you don't you must be dumb or lazy or both and should just shoot yourself to make room for hard working people" he says.
I'm not sure what your friend is really like. But I've heard this sort of rabbid commentary before, and it is really not all that hard to trigger.
Frankly, it's been known since biblical times what poor diet does to people... it's just that we haven't been able to describe exactly how it happens until recently thanks to advancements in medicine. We want the poor to eat badly... because it keeps them poor, and exploitable.
Why would we want that? Here we are talking about a welfare program that costs productive members of society money. The poor/dependent classes are just that, poor, dependent and unproductive. You make it seem like we do it to get benefit from them, when in actual fact we don't get anything from them besides crime.
Perhaps you were talking about how the dependent class is easily manipulated to gain votes. That I can agree with, and it makes a whole lot more sense than the "slavery" idea. No wonder I keep hearing politicians calling for it, and my peers denouncing it as unfair as they already give to charity in local institutions.
It's really simple: There are times and places where it's acceptable to try to get laid. There are times and places where it's not acceptable. Work (and work-related activities like professional conferences) fall into the second category.
That is your opinion, and you're welcome to follow it. The rest of us will listen to the actual women around us in an open and honest context. Now take your man-bashing elsewhere, buddy.
Try this, if you are a guy in tech who doesn't get it: When you encounter a reasonably good-looking (by your standards) woman with a similar professional background, is your thought process about her professional work (e.g. language or OS choices, server configurations, algorithm ideas), or is your thought process about how you might be able to get her into bed? If it's about her work, congratulations, you aren't part of the problem. If it's about the hope of bedding her, then you need to pay attention and make sure you're thinking with your brain rather than your dick. If you don't know for sure, err on the side of professionalism and focusing on work, and let her make the conversation personal if she wants to. If you can't stick to those rules, you are part of the problem.
The amount of man-hate in this is just staggering. Women and men are individuals, and they live in a society filled with other individuals. We're all expected to grow up and learn to deal with life. That means telling the jerk breathing over your neck that he is being inappropriate. But what it absolutely does not mean is that an entire gender needs to bend over backwards and act shy to not offend the opposite gender. Or for the other gender to act coy and play a complicated mating ritual in order to ascertain mating intentions and to approve them covertly; while at the same time the other side is not allowed to signal those intentions. Ridiculous.
Now, I don't know what your reasoning behind this is. Or how you made the jump in logic that says it's somehow "not okay" until the female approves and/or initiates. Yet, you don't hold women to the same standard. Because if you did, and people were to subscribe to your one-sided and sexist ideas then no one would ever procreate.
Reading one of your other comments now, I notice you seem to think that such actions are inappropriate in work settings. Why? Where do you draw the arbitrary line between pursuing friendship and pursuing intimacy with a colleague? Since it is okay to make friends with your fellow colleagues, which is a social activity, why is it not appropriate to make an intimate one? On top of that, you are not the only individual in society, and you can't project your own personal biases, emotional conclusions and downright selfish notions of social interaction onto the rest of us. Some people are perfectly okay with and willing to pursue intimate relations with colleagues. If that is a problem with the employer, then they need to individually deal with it. If a colleague is being a jerk at work, you deal with them on a case-by-case basis. That means you mustn't attack a gender because you never grew up and learnt how to deal with possibly romantic and/or sexual advances in an uncomfortable location.
At least the random group of people on the internet don't threaten me with guns for not obeying their silly rules like the government does.
Before someone jumps the gun, no I don't mean that we should be allowed to do anything we want. Don't even bother suggesting it as a retort; it's ridiculously cliche.
You can't assume that 911 was unprovoked. What with all the meddling that the US has been doing around the world, especially in the middle east. American Intervention in the Middle East If anything, it sure as hell made it a whole lot easier for nutjob terrorist leaders to recruit suicide bombers.
It's all fine and dandy to switch over to a new version of python. But unless we can justify it to our client, it ain't gonna happen. The client just isn't going to go for it unless they see some measurable/provable benefit to switching. From their point of view it works, and we'd better damn well not touch it. Unfortunately, the codebase has grown over the years, and sloppy developers have come and gone, leaving the rest of us with a brittle codebase that has very little code-coverage. This is most certainly NOT an ideal scenario when it comes to upgrading, as there are too many unknowns. And that's assuming we could get the client's permission, because yes, the code belongs to them.
But the fact remains that the primary goal of the Afghan war and the current bombings in Pakistan and Qatar is to disrupt a large and well funded terrorist group that attacked first and has as *its* goal the destruction of the US and other Western or other non-fundamentalist-Islamic nations.
Ah yes, the terrorists that use "defence" as a justification for their actions. Perhaps your "fixing" of a non-existent problem is the actual cause for the problem? Violence leads to more violence, and the only way to break that cycle is to stop aggressing against "enemies" and just defend your own if they decide to aggress. They will eventually go away, or become big enough with their aggression to warrant stepped-up responses.
Slashdot Mirror
Programs are getting too complex for humans to understand
We need more powerful tools to manage the complexity
You are the tool. We are the tools. Our job as programmers is to "manage complexity". To take a complex problem and mangle it away into a layer of abstraction so that we can comfortably work with it. Of course, some programmers take that too far and make 50 gazillion layers that shouldn't be there, but that's a different discussion entirely.
Or pretty much any news site or network. Make no mistake about it, they will try hide as much as they can in order to drum up outrage/page views.
Case in point: I went to http://science-beta.slashdot.o... and control-f'd your name and found this very comment.
I tried that too. And all I got was an empty comment section that read:
Sigh.
You silly neo-cons/tea* make lance armstrong and richard nixon look like boy scouts that tell simple white lies.
And this is what's wrong with society. Some people supposedly lie/exaggerate the truth/say something objectionable, and immediately some douche from who knows where decides that they only did it because "they must be neo-cons/tea*" Or however the fuck you interpret that positively awful sentence of yours. That's as bad as a racial/ethnic/religious stereotype being attributed to some random trait or action.
But then again, I don't blame you because I know you're doing it as an act of intellectual desperation. You, and people like you, will use any opportunity or example to try to reinforce your ridiculous partisan politics and the hatred that comes along with it. People like you are why we can't have nice things as a society.
I thought that was long ago proven by PHP? If you even want to call it a programming language, that is.
The javascript project is not my primary target, so I don't have, nor do I wish to have, special tools specific to JS.
That's just silly. "This is my only project in language A. Therefore I won't get any tools that help me program in language A". If you're too lazy to download a free IDE and install it for the single project you are working on, then you deserve to suffer trying to use that programming language. Right tools for the right job, and if you can't bother to work smarter then you're just screwing yourself over.
Because he's part of the ruling class. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can have the "free and just" society that statist people incessantly drone on and on about.
How about you add a disclaimer to the top of your post? "Warning: Post contains my anecdotally-proven religious and racial stereotypes."
There are other alternatives. Some of us can recognize the value of government spending that doesn't directly benefit me, but benefits society in ways that may benefit me or my decendents(sic) in the future.
Of course... But to me that sounds like "spend more on things that I think will benefit me/society/my descendants." You can sugar-coat what you say with all the good intentions in the world, but it doesn't change the fact that what you think and what others think could be two completely separate things because they're based on opinion. And the only way to resolve that is by forcing your majority will, or special interest group powers onto the rest of us who happen to be part of the minority.
It would be nice if I could find a non-statist, who is *also* not a corporatist. Unfortunately all the non-statists I've ever heard of are devout corporatists.
Ah yes, that old re-hashed tripe. Bet you think you sound all hip and cool using the word "corporatist", huh? Channeling the inner hippy, eh? I suggest you go and re-read your statist manual on "how to dismiss those pesky free-thinkers before they convince enough people of their own inherent rights".
On a more serious note, here is an actual definition of "corporatism": "the control of a state or organization by large interest groups." By that definition, you could say that society is already controlled by large interest groups. And the state then gives them power to wield their beliefs over the rest of society.
The problem is that most of the people who claim to want small government really mean: spend less on everything except the things that benefit me.
And that is better than those that say "spend more on things that benefit me"? That's a race upwards; to add bloat. Whereas the other one you mentioned is more of a race to the lowest amount of funding possible. What I'm trying to say is that it's all too easy to "spend more on what benefits me" because the cost of that is spread across the entire population and no thought is required. But it's a hell of a lot more difficult to justify and prove the need for items that require us to take away funding from other items, or to simply justify a reduction in spending on a certain wasteful/unneeded item. And that's one of the big traits of the political system: practically no one dares to be the bad guy that rocks the boat by saying or trying to reduce unnecessary funding. Because _some_ group, doesn't matter which one will proceed to tear that politician a new one in the media. This is democracy, this is populism.
So they're idiots for not wanting to live surrounded by skyscrapers.
No, I'd say they are idiots for blaming others for the things they themselves are partly to blame for. I'm referring to the building and property zoning laws. Hell, you know democracy, I'm sure. If majority rules, then everyone shares blame. That also means not singling anyone out, like these cretins are doing to some random engineer who happens to work for a company that they currently find fashionable to hate or are be jealous of.
I know inflation is seen as the tool of the devil today - but if you have a 200,000 BTC 30-year loan (for example) on a house that you're paying back over time then, as I understand it, it becomes in *harder* to pay it back (in 30 years the remaining value will be worth more than it was when you started rather than the other way around).
If the value of the currency was rising, then yes you could say that the "value" that you have to pay off is increasing. However, you can't look at it in isolation. The interest rates will be different, probably higher. Not to mention people will be less inclined to borrow money precisely because of what you mention. It may make a lot of economic sense in a deflationary scenario for people to rent + save until they can buy their own property. As opposed to borrowing + living in the same apartment as they slowly pay it off.
In the end it's up to the individual people to decide what their priorities are, how risk-averse they are and what course of action to take as a result of that.
What an absolutely ridiculous way to butt in your opinions of "stand your ground" laws. Completely off-topic to both the article and the AC comment you responded to when you initially brought it up.
I wasn't talking about the "inefficiency" of the code. There's more to code than just how fast it runs. That has it's place, but most of the time, it is dwarfed by more important factors to consider.
I had a look at the rest of the code. Granted, it's a tad better than what you posted, but it is still ridiculously amateurish... He should definitely submit some of it here.
Therefore we should simply kill them. Afterall, it would improve productivity and enhance cash flow.
I never said that. Geeze, way to overblow and misconstrue things to get your opinions heard. I'm not going to bother trying to have a discussion with you next time. Any old idiot can take single sentences out of context to make their point. Good day.
I tried to explain that this is not the case to this guy I know who makes well into 6 figures (he'll never let anyone forget that). He thinks anyone on welfare should die on the streets because they are just sub human leeches, and there should be no such thing as welfare in the first place. "It's everyone's responsibility to go out and get a good job and make lots of money. Anyone can do it! If you don't you must be dumb or lazy or both and should just shoot yourself to make room for hard working people" he says.
I'm not sure what your friend is really like. But I've heard this sort of rabbid commentary before, and it is really not all that hard to trigger.
Frankly, it's been known since biblical times what poor diet does to people... it's just that we haven't been able to describe exactly how it happens until recently thanks to advancements in medicine. We want the poor to eat badly... because it keeps them poor, and exploitable.
Why would we want that? Here we are talking about a welfare program that costs productive members of society money. The poor/dependent classes are just that, poor, dependent and unproductive. You make it seem like we do it to get benefit from them, when in actual fact we don't get anything from them besides crime.
Perhaps you were talking about how the dependent class is easily manipulated to gain votes. That I can agree with, and it makes a whole lot more sense than the "slavery" idea. No wonder I keep hearing politicians calling for it, and my peers denouncing it as unfair as they already give to charity in local institutions.
It's really simple: There are times and places where it's acceptable to try to get laid. There are times and places where it's not acceptable. Work (and work-related activities like professional conferences) fall into the second category.
That is your opinion, and you're welcome to follow it. The rest of us will listen to the actual women around us in an open and honest context. Now take your man-bashing elsewhere, buddy.
Try this, if you are a guy in tech who doesn't get it: When you encounter a reasonably good-looking (by your standards) woman with a similar professional background, is your thought process about her professional work (e.g. language or OS choices, server configurations, algorithm ideas), or is your thought process about how you might be able to get her into bed? If it's about her work, congratulations, you aren't part of the problem. If it's about the hope of bedding her, then you need to pay attention and make sure you're thinking with your brain rather than your dick. If you don't know for sure, err on the side of professionalism and focusing on work, and let her make the conversation personal if she wants to. If you can't stick to those rules, you are part of the problem.
The amount of man-hate in this is just staggering. Women and men are individuals, and they live in a society filled with other individuals. We're all expected to grow up and learn to deal with life. That means telling the jerk breathing over your neck that he is being inappropriate. But what it absolutely does not mean is that an entire gender needs to bend over backwards and act shy to not offend the opposite gender. Or for the other gender to act coy and play a complicated mating ritual in order to ascertain mating intentions and to approve them covertly; while at the same time the other side is not allowed to signal those intentions. Ridiculous.
Now, I don't know what your reasoning behind this is. Or how you made the jump in logic that says it's somehow "not okay" until the female approves and/or initiates. Yet, you don't hold women to the same standard. Because if you did, and people were to subscribe to your one-sided and sexist ideas then no one would ever procreate.
Reading one of your other comments now, I notice you seem to think that such actions are inappropriate in work settings. Why? Where do you draw the arbitrary line between pursuing friendship and pursuing intimacy with a colleague? Since it is okay to make friends with your fellow colleagues, which is a social activity, why is it not appropriate to make an intimate one? On top of that, you are not the only individual in society, and you can't project your own personal biases, emotional conclusions and downright selfish notions of social interaction onto the rest of us. Some people are perfectly okay with and willing to pursue intimate relations with colleagues. If that is a problem with the employer, then they need to individually deal with it. If a colleague is being a jerk at work, you deal with them on a case-by-case basis. That means you mustn't attack a gender because you never grew up and learnt how to deal with possibly romantic and/or sexual advances in an uncomfortable location.
At least the random group of people on the internet don't threaten me with guns for not obeying their silly rules like the government does.
Before someone jumps the gun, no I don't mean that we should be allowed to do anything we want. Don't even bother suggesting it as a retort; it's ridiculously cliche.
You can't assume that 911 was unprovoked. What with all the meddling that the US has been doing around the world, especially in the middle east. American Intervention in the Middle East If anything, it sure as hell made it a whole lot easier for nutjob terrorist leaders to recruit suicide bombers.
It's all fine and dandy to switch over to a new version of python. But unless we can justify it to our client, it ain't gonna happen. The client just isn't going to go for it unless they see some measurable/provable benefit to switching. From their point of view it works, and we'd better damn well not touch it. Unfortunately, the codebase has grown over the years, and sloppy developers have come and gone, leaving the rest of us with a brittle codebase that has very little code-coverage. This is most certainly NOT an ideal scenario when it comes to upgrading, as there are too many unknowns. And that's assuming we could get the client's permission, because yes, the code belongs to them.
But the fact remains that the primary goal of the Afghan war and the current bombings in Pakistan and Qatar is to disrupt a large and well funded terrorist group that attacked first and has as *its* goal the destruction of the US and other Western or other non-fundamentalist-Islamic nations.
Ah yes, the terrorists that use "defence" as a justification for their actions. Perhaps your "fixing" of a non-existent problem is the actual cause for the problem? Violence leads to more violence, and the only way to break that cycle is to stop aggressing against "enemies" and just defend your own if they decide to aggress. They will eventually go away, or become big enough with their aggression to warrant stepped-up responses.