A lot of very large users of Java are unhappy with it, not necessarily for technical reasons, but for legal reasons since Oracle set such a negative tone in court.
The only reason Java isn't dead yet is that it would be expensive to abandon existing infrastructure so abruptly. It will be a around for quite a while still, but it won't be too long before it's relegated to the decaying margins of the software industry.
The question posed captures an oversimplification of reality. I would be considered a "rock star" by the CEO whose company I effectively destroyed by leaving. I left because there were no interesting challenges and much bigger players were offering much more money and much greater benefits. I'm dynamite at math, CS, and coding, and I'm only about 50% socially inept. ROCK STAR.
You may not need a "rock star" in most situations, but they can often be found doing the work of N > 3 people of average technical competence in companies operating on a tight budget.
He's wrong. The technocratic imperialism part is accurate, in a sense.
The notion that it is centered around a specific culture confined to a specific nation-state is not. He seems to be blinded by his disdain for America, when in fact his alleged adversaries are politically ambivalent outside of their concern for policy that impacts their own state-independent agenda.
It would be interesting to see the results of an experiment which brings the same subjects back in 5 or 10 years and asks them to think the same passthoughts. I highly doubt as much accuracy would be observed.
This is however an easy problem to solve: just change your passthought every few months.
1. Look at $date.
2. Anything noteworthy happen? If no, skip to #5.
3. Do we think it's interesting? If no, skip to #5.
4. Make Google Doodle of it. Yay, interesting knowledge for people to stumble upon.
5. Increment $date by 1 day and go back to #1.
There's nothing special about multiples of 10. In fact, prime numbers are certainly much more special by many standards. 61 is a prime number.
If Google hired so many pedants they would probably have never gotten off the ground. They'd still be arguing over the fact that "luck" doesn't really have anything to do with the operation of the "I'm feeling lucky" button.
As far as I can tell, you completely missed my point. I understand precisely what Computer Science is and I understand precisely what programming is. You may have self-esteem issues.
There are still plenty of schools with respectable CS curricula that would meet these standards. I was only saying that the pool of CS grads is increasingly diluted by folks coming out of lesser programs.
As a very basic heuristic filter: If there are no course requirements for discrete mathematics or computational theory, then it's not a real CS program.
Someone has an awfully fucking large ax to grind, don't they? Let's see an EE build Google Maps from scratch with his cute little books about hash tables and UNIX Networking and shitty FEM code scrapped together in FORTRAN. Just pick up some quality books on the theory and application of ____________ and you can build incredibly complex, massive-scale information systems using the power of numerical analysis and computational fluid dynamics.
It's not apples and oranges, it's apples and fucking Jupiter.
If you are as good as you think you are, find a way to show it. Seriously, there is a major disconnect between your situation and the skill set you claim to have. What's missing? A degree from CMU and 10 thousand hours of coding don't amount to anything if, for example, you just suck at problem-solving.
There are plenty of relevant positions to fill and you remain unemployed.
So here's a test of your problem-solving skills: Figure out what you're doing wrong.
It seems that an increasing proportion of Computer Science resumes I receive are from recent graduates who don't know much at all about computer science. They've done a little Java or C++ or VB programming, they've explored such in-depth topics as linked lists and arrays, and they've heard of quicksort.
Anything from complexity analysis, language classification, (heaven forbid) Turing machines, to operating systems, memory management, distributed systems, or synchronization? Hell, hell no.
The ability to socialize and represent oneself well in social situations is important, but it's not that important. If it is that important to you, your intelligence or engineering prowess may not be as great as you'd like to think.
Fact is, falling somewhere in between Social Retard and Master of Etiquette is just fine for most people.
Etiquette is silly anyway. I care what kind of stories you tell and how you view the world around you, not how you hold your fucking fork.
Moderately funny, but more important, probably not an entirely inaccurate reflection of how the lobby-drones in Congress will some day try to swing the discussion as the dinosaur companies reel and flail and squirm and die.
It is in Google's best interest to have a world that is as fully connected as possible. Driving down the artificially inflated price of consumer-grade bandwidth is a win for Google and a win for everyone outside of the colluding or monopolistic telcos.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the distinction between the language and the JVM is irrelevant here. Behind both lurks an army of Oracle lawyers waiting to pounce.
A lot of very large users of Java are unhappy with it, not necessarily for technical reasons, but for legal reasons since Oracle set such a negative tone in court.
The only reason Java isn't dead yet is that it would be expensive to abandon existing infrastructure so abruptly. It will be a around for quite a while still, but it won't be too long before it's relegated to the decaying margins of the software industry.
The question posed captures an oversimplification of reality. I would be considered a "rock star" by the CEO whose company I effectively destroyed by leaving. I left because there were no interesting challenges and much bigger players were offering much more money and much greater benefits. I'm dynamite at math, CS, and coding, and I'm only about 50% socially inept. ROCK STAR.
You may not need a "rock star" in most situations, but they can often be found doing the work of N > 3 people of average technical competence in companies operating on a tight budget.
Hear hear! Blackthorne was when I fell in love with Blizzard. That and Rock n Roll Racing on the SNES.
Also, Schmidt is not a visionary.
He's wrong. The technocratic imperialism part is accurate, in a sense.
The notion that it is centered around a specific culture confined to a specific nation-state is not. He seems to be blinded by his disdain for America, when in fact his alleged adversaries are politically ambivalent outside of their concern for policy that impacts their own state-independent agenda.
n/t
It would be interesting to see the results of an experiment which brings the same subjects back in 5 or 10 years and asks them to think the same passthoughts. I highly doubt as much accuracy would be observed.
This is however an easy problem to solve: just change your passthought every few months.
While not uncommon, I will contest that it is in fact both strange and ridiculous.
Did it look like this? ---
Here's what I imagine happens.
1. Look at $date.
2. Anything noteworthy happen? If no, skip to #5.
3. Do we think it's interesting? If no, skip to #5.
4. Make Google Doodle of it. Yay, interesting knowledge for people to stumble upon.
5. Increment $date by 1 day and go back to #1.
There's nothing special about multiples of 10. In fact, prime numbers are certainly much more special by many standards. 61 is a prime number.
If Google hired so many pedants they would probably have never gotten off the ground. They'd still be arguing over the fact that "luck" doesn't really have anything to do with the operation of the "I'm feeling lucky" button.
I do suppose his estimate of 10% share could be attainable: Surely more than 10% of all web developers are incompetent.
n/t
Another fine Anonymous Coward completely misses the point and leaps at the opportunity to spout vitriol. IMBNH.
As far as I can tell, you completely missed my point. I understand precisely what Computer Science is and I understand precisely what programming is. You may have self-esteem issues.
My shit's pretty straight.
There are still plenty of schools with respectable CS curricula that would meet these standards. I was only saying that the pool of CS grads is increasingly diluted by folks coming out of lesser programs.
As a very basic heuristic filter: If there are no course requirements for discrete mathematics or computational theory, then it's not a real CS program.
Someone has an awfully fucking large ax to grind, don't they? Let's see an EE build Google Maps from scratch with his cute little books about hash tables and UNIX Networking and shitty FEM code scrapped together in FORTRAN. Just pick up some quality books on the theory and application of ____________ and you can build incredibly complex, massive-scale information systems using the power of numerical analysis and computational fluid dynamics.
It's not apples and oranges, it's apples and fucking Jupiter.
If you are as good as you think you are, find a way to show it. Seriously, there is a major disconnect between your situation and the skill set you claim to have. What's missing? A degree from CMU and 10 thousand hours of coding don't amount to anything if, for example, you just suck at problem-solving.
There are plenty of relevant positions to fill and you remain unemployed.
So here's a test of your problem-solving skills: Figure out what you're doing wrong.
It seems that an increasing proportion of Computer Science resumes I receive are from recent graduates who don't know much at all about computer science. They've done a little Java or C++ or VB programming, they've explored such in-depth topics as linked lists and arrays, and they've heard of quicksort.
Anything from complexity analysis, language classification, (heaven forbid) Turing machines, to operating systems, memory management, distributed systems, or synchronization? Hell, hell no.
It is infinitely more important to be an interesting person than it is to be a well-mannered person.
The ability to socialize and represent oneself well in social situations is important, but it's not that important. If it is that important to you, your intelligence or engineering prowess may not be as great as you'd like to think.
Fact is, falling somewhere in between Social Retard and Master of Etiquette is just fine for most people.
Etiquette is silly anyway. I care what kind of stories you tell and how you view the world around you, not how you hold your fucking fork.
THANK YOU. Regardless of the specific subject at hand, GP has completely overlooked that fact that optimization is dependent upon constraints.
Maybe I don't give a good goddamn about the temperature or tenderness of my food: I just want to forget about cutting it.
Yes it can work elsewhere
No it can't work everywhere.
In short: It doesn't scale.
Moderately funny, but more important, probably not an entirely inaccurate reflection of how the lobby-drones in Congress will some day try to swing the discussion as the dinosaur companies reel and flail and squirm and die.
It is in Google's best interest to have a world that is as fully connected as possible. Driving down the artificially inflated price of consumer-grade bandwidth is a win for Google and a win for everyone outside of the colluding or monopolistic telcos.