This is guaranteed to be true. Younger developers exist, can develop software, and are generally cheaper than older developers. At some point it makes sense - if nothing else for the sake of efficiency - to adopt tools that people already know, especially if this means dumping fewer training resources into new hires.
There is a reason Oracle dumps billions of dollars into universities who train kids to program Java.
I agree completely - it's not intuitive. But once you have the "Aha!" moment and everything makes sense, you realize that it's not only brilliant, but also really difficult to explain to someone else who doesn't get it yet. As someone once infamously tweeted (it's a joke):
Git gets easier once you get the basic idea that branches are homeomorphic endofunctors mapping submanifolds of a Hilbert space.
Don't attack weak statistical models as if they are the problem. Attack the behavior wherein people assume those models communicate meaningful information, or that their assumptions about that information are correct.
He was bankrupt. It is public knowledge. Therefore this association exists. The inference that he is still bankrupt, or that the past status of bankruptcy should have any bearing on one's desire to engage him outright, is the problem. Google is not the problem here.
Code is bad because of deadlines, everyone seems to agree.
Bad is relative though. If the software satisfies its business case, and ultimately doesn't have unmanageable maintenance costs associated with it, it's basically good regardless of its failure to meet standards of elegance and clarity.
People write good real-world code all the time, and most of it is open-source. You can attribute bad industry code to greed, and that's valid, but it doesn't necessarily imply that the result is bad. Greed isn't going anywhere and greed builds some useful stuff amidst all the messes it creates.
Even in the projects where time is not a constraint, growing complexity often leads to programmers making design compromises. These aren't necessarily as heinous as what you find in profit-driven code, but they exist because software is hard to get right when the problem being solved (i.e., the set of requirements) is almost always a moving target.
There is always a compromise between toiling endlessly in the realm of over-engineering, or shipping a release some time in the next century.
Note that this should not to be confused with Schrödinger's ass, the infamous non-deterministic pack mule known for delivering US weapons to either Afghanistan or Pakistan at any given time.
All I can say is that your mode of communication is too erratic to be worth engaging. Reading your posts is a lot like jamming a screwdriver into my eyes.
Why is this only the responsibility of a sucker? Presumably it's a small company. This kind of thing happens all the time at small companies; say your small development team would benefit from a project manager that can also efficiently interface with customers. As an engineer, this person would technically be your "boss," yet as lead engineer you are uniquely qualified to evaluate how useful they will be to your team and how well they will fit in.
Now if this were at a large corporation with legions of HR personnel and a complex management hierarchy... yeah, GTFO. But I can pretty much guarantee that this is not the case.
I had to interview my incoming boss. What I got were a pile of really terrible middle management clowns, with the exception of one brilliant physicist-turned-engineer-turned-manager that I immediately "knew" was the right answer.
The important thing to remember is that this is an entirely situational choice. There are no one-size-fits-all tricks or gotchas that are going to help you find the right candidate. Do some thinking of your own. What do you want to get out of a boss? How do you see their position best serving the organization?
Once you can answer those questions, you can figure out how to evaluate their capacity to do the job.
Horizontal limits are still a good practice, IMO, because I feel they generally improve readability.
80 is perhaps too restrictive, but the limit shouldn't be much higher. One problem is that the distribution of line width (and thus overall code density) in any sufficiently long file can vary erratically and this makes for inefficient consumption by a human reader.
Also, the power of parallel editing should not be overlooked! Sometimes it's nice to be looking at 4 source modules simultaneously.
It amazes me to see the amount of FUD/. readers are willing to indulge in the face of new technology. Yes, it sounds a lot like some terrible thing you learned to fear from reading sci-fi novels or something. Oooohohhhhhhh. Might as well quote the Bible while you're at it.
It ain't oppression until it's oppression. As of this moment, it's a cool toy.
Before you wander too far off into left field, you should probably know that the government funds this kind of research primarily because some geek in a lab has some good ideas and applies for a grant.
I have been working in this industry for nearly a decade, and as far as I can tell, the entire concept is complete bullshit.
It's basically a circle-jerk for hacks who fancy themselves as revolutionary designers or educators. The reality is that there are no substantive results to speak of with regard to an improved learning experience. Nobody has managed to (legitimately) quantify the efficacy of game-based learning in any convincing way.
Still, I will keep going for my slice of the hype-pie before it all disappears.
Yes and no. The world is, in general, more at peace than at any other point in human history. So in relative terms, yes.
In absolute terms, no. There are still lots of first-world-funded conflicts going on. There are still genocidal dictators. Life in North Korea can hardly be described as "peaceful." People are being killed every day for petty disputes over land, religion, and politics.
We've got a lot of problems. We're just better than we've been. It's a start.
I understand the sentiment that ASDs are not necessarily "diseases" and that it may be inappropriate or undesirable to label them as such. Yes, yes, lots of scientists and engineers and mathematicians and musicians and so on and so forth; lots of these people would qualify as subjects of ASD.
That fact does not mean we should ignore the condition. As someone with moderate formerly-Asperger's-Syndrome afflictions, I think it would be wonderful to have both my analytic and creative aptitudes while also not being socially awkward. The capacities are not mutually exclusive. I can recognize when my behavior is a social detriment, I can analyze the behavior and trace it back to its psychological roots, but I cannot mentally pull myself away from it or alter it in any significant way.
And frankly, it does kind of suck. So maybe don't call it a "disease" or a "disorder" if you don't want to. Social impairment is social impairment, and if social interaction is something you value as a human, you may consider yourself to be impaired if you have psychological hangups which preclude your ability to feel "normal" in social situations.
It is also important to recognize the economic power of social aptitude, and it would be naive to suggest that humanity should attempt to cease its natural social behaviors and in order to accommodate the needs of the infinitely perplexed.
Same here. I created my original account in 2000, but have long since lost the e-mail account to which my/. uid was attached. Apparently when I graduated and moved on to bigger and better things, maintaining my/. user profile was not at the top of my priority list. D:
Slashdot Mirror
This is guaranteed to be true. Younger developers exist, can develop software, and are generally cheaper than older developers. At some point it makes sense - if nothing else for the sake of efficiency - to adopt tools that people already know, especially if this means dumping fewer training resources into new hires.
There is a reason Oracle dumps billions of dollars into universities who train kids to program Java.
Git gets easier once you get the basic idea that branches are homeomorphic endofunctors mapping submanifolds of a Hilbert space.
But really, think in graphs.
Don't attack weak statistical models as if they are the problem. Attack the behavior wherein people assume those models communicate meaningful information, or that their assumptions about that information are correct.
He was bankrupt. It is public knowledge. Therefore this association exists. The inference that he is still bankrupt, or that the past status of bankruptcy should have any bearing on one's desire to engage him outright, is the problem. Google is not the problem here.
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they tell me to take you up to the bridge. Call that job satisfaction? Cause I don't. "
I drew weapons, war, combat, death machines, space lasers, tanks, missiles, bombers, apocalypses... all throughout school.
At no point was I ever angry at anyone or ever interested, even slightly, in actual violence.
What the fuck, humanity? What the actual fuck?
Code is bad because of deadlines, everyone seems to agree.
Bad is relative though. If the software satisfies its business case, and ultimately doesn't have unmanageable maintenance costs associated with it, it's basically good regardless of its failure to meet standards of elegance and clarity.
People write good real-world code all the time, and most of it is open-source. You can attribute bad industry code to greed, and that's valid, but it doesn't necessarily imply that the result is bad. Greed isn't going anywhere and greed builds some useful stuff amidst all the messes it creates.
Even in the projects where time is not a constraint, growing complexity often leads to programmers making design compromises. These aren't necessarily as heinous as what you find in profit-driven code, but they exist because software is hard to get right when the problem being solved (i.e., the set of requirements) is almost always a moving target.
There is always a compromise between toiling endlessly in the realm of over-engineering, or shipping a release some time in the next century.
Well, no, the FCC does not have the authority to do this. This story is about a bill that would grant the FCC such authority.
It won't pass though, because there is a lot more money against than there is in favor.
Note that this should not to be confused with Schrödinger's ass, the infamous non-deterministic pack mule known for delivering US weapons to either Afghanistan or Pakistan at any given time.
The authors says.
This is known as a Schrödinger's ess. Submitter probably didn't bother to observe the cardinality of the set of authors before posting.
All I can say is that your mode of communication is too erratic to be worth engaging. Reading your posts is a lot like jamming a screwdriver into my eyes.
Why is this only the responsibility of a sucker? Presumably it's a small company. This kind of thing happens all the time at small companies; say your small development team would benefit from a project manager that can also efficiently interface with customers. As an engineer, this person would technically be your "boss," yet as lead engineer you are uniquely qualified to evaluate how useful they will be to your team and how well they will fit in.
Now if this were at a large corporation with legions of HR personnel and a complex management hierarchy... yeah, GTFO. But I can pretty much guarantee that this is not the case.
I had to interview my incoming boss. What I got were a pile of really terrible middle management clowns, with the exception of one brilliant physicist-turned-engineer-turned-manager that I immediately "knew" was the right answer.
The important thing to remember is that this is an entirely situational choice. There are no one-size-fits-all tricks or gotchas that are going to help you find the right candidate. Do some thinking of your own. What do you want to get out of a boss? How do you see their position best serving the organization?
Once you can answer those questions, you can figure out how to evaluate their capacity to do the job.
Most likely a combination of internal politics and an ambitious project manager.
Horizontal limits are still a good practice, IMO, because I feel they generally improve readability.
80 is perhaps too restrictive, but the limit shouldn't be much higher. One problem is that the distribution of line width (and thus overall code density) in any sufficiently long file can vary erratically and this makes for inefficient consumption by a human reader.
Also, the power of parallel editing should not be overlooked! Sometimes it's nice to be looking at 4 source modules simultaneously.
It amazes me to see the amount of FUD /. readers are willing to indulge in the face of new technology. Yes, it sounds a lot like some terrible thing you learned to fear from reading sci-fi novels or something. Oooohohhhhhhh. Might as well quote the Bible while you're at it.
It ain't oppression until it's oppression. As of this moment, it's a cool toy.
Before you wander too far off into left field, you should probably know that the government funds this kind of research primarily because some geek in a lab has some good ideas and applies for a grant.
I have been working in this industry for nearly a decade, and as far as I can tell, the entire concept is complete bullshit.
It's basically a circle-jerk for hacks who fancy themselves as revolutionary designers or educators. The reality is that there are no substantive results to speak of with regard to an improved learning experience. Nobody has managed to (legitimately) quantify the efficacy of game-based learning in any convincing way.
Still, I will keep going for my slice of the hype-pie before it all disappears.
Yes and no. The world is, in general, more at peace than at any other point in human history. So in relative terms, yes.
In absolute terms, no. There are still lots of first-world-funded conflicts going on. There are still genocidal dictators. Life in North Korea can hardly be described as "peaceful." People are being killed every day for petty disputes over land, religion, and politics.
We've got a lot of problems. We're just better than we've been. It's a start.
I understand the sentiment that ASDs are not necessarily "diseases" and that it may be inappropriate or undesirable to label them as such. Yes, yes, lots of scientists and engineers and mathematicians and musicians and so on and so forth; lots of these people would qualify as subjects of ASD.
That fact does not mean we should ignore the condition. As someone with moderate formerly-Asperger's-Syndrome afflictions, I think it would be wonderful to have both my analytic and creative aptitudes while also not being socially awkward. The capacities are not mutually exclusive. I can recognize when my behavior is a social detriment, I can analyze the behavior and trace it back to its psychological roots, but I cannot mentally pull myself away from it or alter it in any significant way.
And frankly, it does kind of suck. So maybe don't call it a "disease" or a "disorder" if you don't want to. Social impairment is social impairment, and if social interaction is something you value as a human, you may consider yourself to be impaired if you have psychological hangups which preclude your ability to feel "normal" in social situations.
It is also important to recognize the economic power of social aptitude, and it would be naive to suggest that humanity should attempt to cease its natural social behaviors and in order to accommodate the needs of the infinitely perplexed.
There is no fiscal cliff. Moving on...
Slashdot's 15th birthday.
The year of the Linux Desktop!
Same here. I created my original account in 2000, but have long since lost the e-mail account to which my /. uid was attached. Apparently when I graduated and moved on to bigger and better things, maintaining my /. user profile was not at the top of my priority list. D:
As a "progressive" in the literal sense, what I believe extends well beyond the impotent stupidity of politics.
More people should read my post's parent.
IPv6 uses 128-bit addressing. Spot on, otherwise.
Though I will say that one thing DNS could use is a more lax TLD creation policy. There should be millions of TLDs, not a mere hundred-or-so.