The understatement of the year. You know a language got a feature wrong when it comprises an inordinate proportion of the compiler error/bugs found. In Pascal it was the missing semicolon, though in that case the compiler caught it. In C it is the change in meaning of = to assignment and == to comparison (though not _that_ common of an error). In Python, more than half of the bugs are either an improper use of a variable or the wrong amount of white space after refactoring some nested code.
Don't get me wrong, I love Python. But weaknesses are weaknesses. The sooner strong typing is added (like Perl did long ago_ the better Python will be.
No they wouldn't as they religiously watch Olympic hockey. Even if some of them went away, by now hockey viewership is so low that a 30% loss of them is more than compensated by a 0.5% gain among the non-viewing public.
but the hard facts are that fans want to see violence.
This is a tautological statement. People who don't like violence turn off the TV and hence the remaining fans are the ones who like violence. But reality is that viewership would definitely go up if violence was eliminated.
Presently, non-violent Olympic hockey gets the highest viewership figures by far both in the USA and Canada.
This, my brother-in-law got a well paid programmer job during the late 90s after just a year of training, then the bubble burst and he couldn't find a job anywhere. In contrast my CS undergrad classmates had no problem landing a job if the particular company they worked for went under.
But when do you call it a disorder? The first time someone complains about the boss? The first divorce? The first time you get into a fight?
I just ran into such a person yesterday at a scientific meeting. The person was so self-involved and incapable of communicating that it will certainly damage his career if he turns to be anything short of Isaac Newton. But would I say this person is sick, i.e. has a disorder? This is not at all clear. People can be very different, and even have negative traits without necessarily being sick. It is hard to draw the line when the damage is subtle and the antisocial behaviour produces no major physical or emotional harm to anyone in specific.
Actually when I road tested e-readers a few years back I found exactly this problem, nearly all of them ended up feeling too heavy after a while.
It is not just the weight: it combines with the lack of heft so they are harder to hold. In the end the light, quilted back Kobo won the round (it didn't hurt that it has some of the least harmful DRM terms of all ereaders).
The politburo was given a briefing about the dire state of the cold war late in the 70's, around 1979. Too late for anything of significance to take place under Carter. Then as you are aware the Soviet Union spend four years helmless, from 1982 to 1985 under an ill Brezhnev, then Andropov, then Chernenko. Finally Gorbachev took over and just a year later negotiations were going on in earnest.
Overpopulation is a problem that is getting worse,
Except that it isn't. Population is tapering off and will start falling by 2050 at the latest, but people are so in love with the malthusian story that they refuse to look at the data.
The only problem with your version of events is that it contradicts everything that happened between Reagan and Gorbachev, as well as everything that Gorbachev did before the collapse of the Soviet Union, such as letting the Berlin wall fall, e.g. how exactly is that "upping the ante"? go back and read up on those events. Gorbachev entire time in office was singly focused on finding the best way out of the cold war for the Soviet Union and its communist party.
Nor in the long term. So far no advanced European economy has turned sociopathic. In fact, the main example of a welfare state, namely Sweden, is doing very well socially and economically.
Given that they labelled their smart people RINOs and expelled them from the party, it seems that yes, you have to be stupid to be allowed to stay in the GOP.
You keep on repeating this as it would make it true. Here are two objectives of a computer program that are not captured by your semantic reductionism: (1) a means for humans to talk to computers and (2) a means for a programmer to communicate with whoever is responsible for maintaining the program later.
I don't expect you to understand it.
what you will find is that mixed in with the CS there is psychology and social science.
Correct, which emphasizes how much CS is its own science. For example, if you look at biology you'll find that it mixes chemistry, physics, statistics, anatomy and ecology among other things. This should be a red flag telling you that your simplistic reductionist view of CS is wrong.
does that mean that definitions of math that fail to include economics must be wrong?
No, it is a statement about the logic semantics of a computer program. A program is more than just a sequence of instructions. You are abstracting that away in order to fit the correspondence but back in the real world computer programs have other aspects such as readability, extensibility, architecture choices, etc.
You are being ironic, aren't you? The terms have very short (less than 50 yrs for CS and 30 for SE) and there is still a lot of confusion as to what exactly an SE is or whether it falls under the purvey of regular engineering.
the head of my department said my degree was in Software Engineering in 1988.
Whatever the head said doesn't mean much. The first diploma with SE on it was in the UK in 1987, the first such degree in the USA was in 1997, which is, let's see, carry the one, fifteen years ago.
Funny you write that, since the SE moniker didn't even exist as an option until about 15 years ago or so. Before that all software was written by CS people. You might actually have heard of someofthem.
A fundamental link as much as everything in physics can be translated to an equation, yet no one claims all of physics is math, because the goals are different, which brings us back to our original point. Motivation is more important than technique.
Slashdot Mirror
The lack of static typing hurts a bit
The understatement of the year. You know a language got a feature wrong when it comprises an inordinate proportion of the compiler error/bugs found. In Pascal it was the missing semicolon, though in that case the compiler caught it. In C it is the change in meaning of = to assignment and == to comparison (though not _that_ common of an error). In Python, more than half of the bugs are either an improper use of a variable or the wrong amount of white space after refactoring some nested code.
Don't get me wrong, I love Python. But weaknesses are weaknesses. The sooner strong typing is added (like Perl did long ago_ the better Python will be.
No they wouldn't as they religiously watch Olympic hockey. Even if some of them went away, by now hockey viewership is so low that a 30% loss of them is more than compensated by a 0.5% gain among the non-viewing public.
but the hard facts are that fans want to see violence.
This is a tautological statement. People who don't like violence turn off the TV and hence the remaining fans are the ones who like violence. But reality is that viewership would definitely go up if violence was eliminated.
Presently, non-violent Olympic hockey gets the highest viewership figures by far both in the USA and Canada.
Except that they went off curve at some point in the early 90s if I remember correctly, and then came back strong in the 2000s.
This, my brother-in-law got a well paid programmer job during the late 90s after just a year of training, then the bubble burst and he couldn't find a job anywhere. In contrast my CS undergrad classmates had no problem landing a job if the particular company they worked for went under.
But when do you call it a disorder? The first time someone complains about the boss? The first divorce? The first time you get into a fight?
I just ran into such a person yesterday at a scientific meeting. The person was so self-involved and incapable of communicating that it will certainly damage his career if he turns to be anything short of Isaac Newton. But would I say this person is sick, i.e. has a disorder? This is not at all clear. People can be very different, and even have negative traits without necessarily being sick. It is hard to draw the line when the damage is subtle and the antisocial behaviour produces no major physical or emotional harm to anyone in specific.
Actually when I road tested e-readers a few years back I found exactly this problem, nearly all of them ended up feeling too heavy after a while.
It is not just the weight: it combines with the lack of heft so they are harder to hold. In the end the light, quilted back Kobo won the round (it didn't hurt that it has some of the least harmful DRM terms of all ereaders).
The politburo was given a briefing about the dire state of the cold war late in the 70's, around 1979. Too late for anything of significance to take place under Carter. Then as you are aware the Soviet Union spend four years helmless, from 1982 to 1985 under an ill Brezhnev, then Andropov, then Chernenko. Finally Gorbachev took over and just a year later negotiations were going on in earnest.
Overpopulation is a problem that is getting worse,
Except that it isn't. Population is tapering off and will start falling by 2050 at the latest, but people are so in love with the malthusian story that they refuse to look at the data.
The only problem with your version of events is that it contradicts everything that happened between Reagan and Gorbachev, as well as everything that Gorbachev did before the collapse of the Soviet Union, such as letting the Berlin wall fall, e.g. how exactly is that "upping the ante"? go back and read up on those events. Gorbachev entire time in office was singly focused on finding the best way out of the cold war for the Soviet Union and its communist party.
Ironically, decades later, Ronald Reagan used a non-functioning decoy (SDI) to wreck the Soviet economy and win the cold war...
The Soviet politburo has declared the cold war unwinnable in the late 70s, much before Reagan ever thought of SDI.
Reagan did not win the cold war, he negotiated a peaceful end to it, given the victory the USA had secured before him.
He prefers the term "free software",
Of course because the equivocation between "free beer" and "free as in freedom" is on purpose.
Actually bitcoin claims that they are not a good test case for a deflationary spiral. Have a look at what they have to say about it/a>.
Maybe we shouldn't execute people because it's wrong.
Frankly, I think it would be morally wrong if we had captured Hitler alive and we hadn't executed him.
In the short term.
Nor in the long term. So far no advanced European economy has turned sociopathic. In fact, the main example of a welfare state, namely Sweden, is doing very well socially and economically.
and I believe that most governments are too.
Actually one of the main properties of the welfare state a la Europe is that is not sociopathic,
Given that they labelled their smart people RINOs and expelled them from the party, it seems that yes, you have to be stupid to be allowed to stay in the GOP.
predicting one election
Except that he has correctly predicted three elections.
p.s. Among many other superpowers, Nate Silver has this amazing ability to bring out the numerical ignoramuses such as the AC above.
Which is all that a computer program is,
You keep on repeating this as it would make it true. Here are two objectives of a computer program that are not captured by your semantic reductionism: (1) a means for humans to talk to computers and (2) a means for a programmer to communicate with whoever is responsible for maintaining the program later.
I don't expect you to understand it.
what you will find is that mixed in with the CS there is psychology and social science.
Correct, which emphasizes how much CS is its own science. For example, if you look at biology you'll find that it mixes chemistry, physics, statistics, anatomy and ecology among other things. This should be a red flag telling you that your simplistic reductionist view of CS is wrong.
does that mean that definitions of math that fail to include economics must be wrong?
The would wrong economics, correct mathematics.
No, it is a statement about the logic semantics of a computer program. A program is more than just a sequence of instructions. You are abstracting that away in order to fit the correspondence but back in the real world computer programs have other aspects such as readability, extensibility, architecture choices, etc.
The terms have very long and precise histories.
You are being ironic, aren't you? The terms have very short (less than 50 yrs for CS and 30 for SE) and there is still a lot of confusion as to what exactly an SE is or whether it falls under the purvey of regular engineering.
the head of my department said my degree was in Software Engineering in 1988.
Whatever the head said doesn't mean much. The first diploma with SE on it was in the UK in 1987, the first such degree in the USA was in 1997, which is, let's see, carry the one, fifteen years ago.
Computer scientists can't write code,
Funny you write that, since the SE moniker didn't even exist as an option until about 15 years ago or so. Before that all software was written by CS people. You might actually have heard of some of them.
Software engineering is taught but not required by most CS curricula (at least from what I have seen),
It is part of the ACM curricula recommendations.
A fundamental link as much as everything in physics can be translated to an equation, yet no one claims all of physics is math, because the goals are different, which brings us back to our original point. Motivation is more important than technique.