... I'd suggest EE instead of CS. Myself, I'm considering EE or CE to complement my CS background. I think for a ME major, an EE degree will be far more beneficial.
Having said that, even after getting a EE, I'd suggest to continue and take some formal courses in CS, or at the very least, to put a lot of attention on software engineering. A lot of EE majors cannot write sufficiently good code for any code base of a certain size and beyond. You only get enough programming education to get your job done with a EE degree, which is fine and dandy... except that you never know when an embedded software job is going to involve a small or large code base...
... having said that, a lot of CS majors cannot write good code for shit either (a sad indictment in the current state of affairs in CS education.)
So, if you like to program, and you like to complement your ME background, as a Computer Scientist, I'd suggest a EE degree. It will be better than a CS degree. Then make conscious effort to not just be a coder, but a software engineer, a good programmer that can actually build good software models.
You'll be very versatile and the hot shit if you go this way IMO... and if you intend to work with the DoD or DoE, consider getting acquainted with the field and theory of systems engineering.
That's what our COBOL forefathers used to say. Seriously, I will never understand why people who make their careers in software decide to make statements like that. Yes, there are always problems with language proliferation, but the alternative is stagnation. We always know more about how to make better software over time, and that inevitably brings changes in tools, languages and paradigms. And you cannot foreseen how much variation is too much (or too little) after the fact.
If there weren't people pushing the envelope (even when things go bad), we would still be wondering whether it is possible to write code without GOTO statements or higher-level languages.
From someone who has had to work with JavaScript, I can say that anything that can bring some more sanity to its syntax is a good thing. When one has to rely on a book that explicitly says to cover only its good parts (a good book mind you), that tells you a lot about the language.
Even Brendan Eich, its creator admits its shortcomings (as he was pretty much arm-twisted into rushing in it out before it was ready with a clear mandate to make it look like Java.) Yes, it can be a reliable workhorse, you can still create applications (good applications) with JavaScript as-is... provided you tuck your elbows, true of any languages, but for a very high-level, sandboxed application language, it is not that much acceptable.
But if there is a language that needs a saner-replacement (even if it is just an abstraction as a source-code compiler), JavaScript is that language. With that analogy, I could write modern apps using Java 1.0 instead of Java 1.5 or Java 1.6, but why would you? Same in this case.
Whether I'm a commercial user or not... why would I - or anyone - ever want web visitors to be able to grab the SQL username and password I'm using in the back end?
You are doing it wrong. Please turn your geek card. Seriously. This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen, typically done only within the bowels of them most incompetently written software ever. Configuration parameters of any kind are never, ever, ever, ever put in code. It's like Jesus Christ man, this is shit that is taught in in freaking sophomore-level programming classes (seriously.)
Poor unexpected victims the ones who pay crappy, shit-flinging code monkeys for developing their software after reading "Be a Quickass PHP/Java/VB/C#/Whatever Cowboy in 12 Hours" (and end up receiving *this*). This is 2011, not the 1960's. There is no excuse for anyone to do this kind of things while working on software for a living.
We're not doing it because it's retarded. Somehow the submitter thinks this will help people who travel for business. Excuse me?
When you land, you've got to say to yourself: "Ok...at home, I started work at 3AM, which was after the sun came up, so here, I have to get to work at....wait....what time does the sun rise here? 5PM? WTF?"
Bingo. Whoever suggested this hasn't done that much traveling (specially work-related traveling) at all.
Can humanity come up with no better use for the biggest iron than a bunch of frivolous, narcissistic ad profiling and covert spying on people living in an allegedly free country?
Yes. It ain't that hard to come to that answer, you know? The slashdot's story half-seriously hints at either a government agency (NSA) or somebody like Facebook. And obviously in Emo fashion, you took it as an statement about humanity. It's more a statement about you.
I find these type of opinions rather simplistic as other opportunities in large-scale application engineering abound:
Data collection and simulation done by the DoE or DoT (not necessarily just a DoE-related agency)
A High-Energy particle collider
Big-Iron for large-scale Online Transaction Processing (think Airline reservation systems)
Algo-Trading
Pharma
Or even IBM's own venture into, God knows, web service platform providers or online searching in direct competition with Google, MS or Amazon.
With the exception of the first two, all others potential clients could request anonymity. Would be nice to know for what purpose this behemot is being built. Would be even better if people could rub a pair of neurons together and come with similar sample lists (it's not rocket science) as opposed to go ZOMG humanity sux plz hold me!.
Anyone else find it depressing that the two top suspects for the use of this system are Facebook and presumably a spy agency?
Can humanity come up with no better use for the biggest iron than a bunch of frivolous, narcissistic ad profiling and covert spying on people living in an allegedly free country?
No wonder F@H doesn't post more progress. Our hardware is going towards people sharing their naked bong photos and government spooks cataloging your naked bong photos.
You are trying too hard looking for something to be upset about (in a very attention-whorish manner to boot.)
then your boss' boss will know that your boss is unable to manage their team effectively and fire your entire team.
Because that is not a hypotesis but a logically inevitable consequence. Your logic is awesome.
you're an idiot.
Noooo, he's a professional. His job is to escalate and let the chips fall where they may, and in the unlikely chance of getting fired, he goes to get another job. Yeah, yeah, even in this bad economy, that's what you do.
Barring some streneous condition (having a newborn baby or a shitload of medical bills) if someone doesn't escalate things when necessary due to fear of getting fired (an implication of a near complete lack of alternatives) one has to wonder what type of technical value if any such a person has to offer considering that he surrenders his professional duties to that kind of unspoken, on-the-job black-mailing and/or ZOMG! phear of getting hopelessly unemployed.
Yep, I don't recall having memory management issues with C++ in the last ten years or so. Smart pointers take care of freeing RAM and the std::vector I use has bounds checking and extensive iterator checking turned on by default (even on operator[]).
Done properly C++ is as safe as Java, i.e. the only memory error is null pointer.
Java, OTOH has no stack unwinding for timely release of resources. Garbage collection is useless for anything other than RAM. Want a file or a network connection closed? You have to wrap it in a try...finally block and close it manually. Every single time, no way to automate it.
Then there's Java's brain-dead inheritance model. Get ready to do multiple inheritance manually by copying/pasting code from all the base classes. Cross your fingers that the interface never changes and you have to go and hunt down every last copy of it.
Want some "drudge"? Use Java.
Your point about the nuances of releasing resources other than memory (.ie. a network connection) are dead on. It is one of the main weaknesses of Java.
Your second point on multiple inheritance, however, makes no sense. You rarely come up with a valid need for multiple inheritance in C++. The majority of cases for modeling require single inheritance and that's it. And that's equally covered rather well in both C++ and Java. For the rare cases of using multiple inheritance (last time I ever saw it was for implementing multiple CORBA interfaces in Java 10 years ago) one simply uses a "tie", a delegation/composition mechanism using typical design patterns.
If you find yourself copy/pasting code for implementing multiple inheritance in a language that does not supports it, you are doing it wrong. Don't blame the language, blame yourself. In the general case, composition over inheritance, specially multiple inheritance. We have known this for quite some time.
What planet are your from? You mean those non-standard libraries which are almost always written in C/C++/Fortran, all of which can be directly used from C/C++. And perhaps you have no clue what you're talking about or being extremely sarcastic, but interfacing to the real world is almost always error prone, slow, difficult to debug, and a major, major pain in the ass. This reason alone is one of the reasons why so many prefer Python+C/C++/libs rather than Java.
Your contradicting several studies on the subject. I trust the studies. In your case, the studies clearly showed what you're depicting (at least at that time), is a by far a minority.
This may come as a shock to you, but believe it or not, there are large deployments of Windows servers with developers developing on Windows. Shocking - I know.
Citations for the studies please. I've been working on Java (mostly) since 1998, from implementing custom network stacks with it, to CORBA, to almost every stuff under the enterprisey umbrella, in 7 different companies in different industries (healthcare, finance, re-insurance, manufacturing and defense), from the very small (a 5-pple medical dictation automation startup) to the very large (40k multinational).
What lehphyro described pretty much matches what I've seen in my line of work. So either the studies are faulty, or you are misrepresenting them.
Talking about studies (and insisting in a reply on the same studies) without providing at least one reference, that's just weasel words and hand waving.
Also, regarding this:
Furthermore, the vast majority of this Java software can not run anywhere without additional code changes because of programmer short sightedness or just simple mistakes
That's an oxymoron. Such a condition is an indictment on the programmers' part, not on the concept. That's like saying OOP, the concept, is flawed just because people keep writing procedural spaghetti with OOP languages. I mean, c'mon, it is possible to write many types of non-trivial systems in C or C++ in a manner that is portable. Unfortunately, for that class of systems, C/C++ programmers fail miserable because they make mistakes and due to human short sightedness. Does that mean that C or C++ (the languages when used under a specific type of constrains) are not portable?
Same with Java. In 13 years of working with Java, I've only come across (first-hand experience) with two systems that were not portable:
1) a java implementation of the DNP protocol stack that I had to write moons ago using the javax.comm serial communication API. That stuff can only work on three platforms (Solaris, Linux and Windows) out of the many others that the JVM run. It won't work (and probably never will) if you drop it in a HP-UX hosted jvm for instance.
2) a web application hosted on WebLogic 8 SP2 that we could not deploy on WebLogic 8 SP4 and up. It contained a weird dependency on apache xerces that was also colliding with any version of WL 8 SP4 and up. I never stuck around long enough to find out if it was a problem with apache xerces itself, with WL 8 SP2 (or SP4 and up) or with the application (even after we did a serious code audit on it.)
The former out of necessity due to dealing with native libraries. The later due to a programming error somewhere. That's it. In 13 years, that's all I've ever seen. Yes, you can create a web application with dependencies to vendor-specific libraries in a web/ee container that will stop you from deploying it in another vendor's container. But then again, that's a programmer's error, not an indictment on the portability provided by the technology in question.
5. went to community college first as opposed to go straight to college and was willing to leave
with parents as much as possible vs racking up an additional $25-$35K (or even more) on loans just to be on a dorm on a 4-year college more often than not needlessly far away.
Maybe it's worthwhile to save the commute and spend the extra time studying grammar?
I kid. 4-year colleges don't teach grammar anymore either.
In any event, it seems that a grammar error is all required to invalidate an argument. Me no know grammar, but me knows the logic do not work like that. Likey forkie? Likey knifey?
What can I say? as a non-native English speaker, I still mix a and an, even after using English for 18 years. Or you can scratch that out as a/an typing error made in jets in a forum in the interweebz (OH NOES, TEH LOLCATS!!). Either way, here is a cookie, a trophy for your nomination for the Interweebz Nazi Gramm3r awards.
5. went to community college first as opposed to go straight to college and was willing to leave
with parents as much as possible vs racking up an additional $25-$35K (or even more) on loans just to be on a dorm on a 4-year college more often than not needlessly far away.
Maybe it's worthwhile to save the commute and spend the extra time studying grammar?
I kid. 4-year colleges don't teach grammar anymore either.
What can I say? as a non-native English speaker, I still mix a and an, even after using English for 18 years. Or you can scratch that out as a/an typing error made in jets in a forum in the interweebz (OH NOES, TEH LOLCATS!!). Either way, here is a cookie, a trophy for your nomination for the Interweebz Nazi Gramm3r awards.
Not really. The main advantage of objects is the loose coupling.
I always thought that well-executed structured and modular programming exhibited loose coupling all along, and that poorly executed OO programming would not (and currently does not just by taking a whiff at the majority of the code base out there written in a OOP language.)
But I guess I was dreaming or I was smoking some serious weed, and the reality is that objects are a necessary condition for loose coupling. Silly me.
...and absolutely nobody is working on completely pie-in-the-shy ideas like, eg., space elevators, SETI, etc.
That's not really true. There are people working on those things, but nobody cares because most people don't have any money.
I can't even imagine what it's like for a 22 year old graduate hoping for a future.
You make it sound like it is the end of the world. It isn't. What a 22-year old young grad should expect for a future depends on
1. What he/she did in HS (yes, it does count),
2. what discipline the youngling is graduating from. Sad but true (not to mention that a 4-year college experience is not necessarily the right thing for everyone),
3. what he/she has done through college (just take coursesVStaking courses beyond the curriculum + networking + looking for internships (specially this) + study-related part time jobs at college),
4. GPA (yes, it does count),
5. went to community college first as opposed to go straight to college and was willing to leave with parents as much as possible vs racking up an additional $25-$35K (or even more) on loans just to be on a dorm on a 4-year college more often than not needlessly far away.
6. willing/unwilling to go to grad school either directly off undergrad school or on a part-time basis while working full-time
7. has not racked up unnecessary debt through college, and lives under a budget, driving a beat-up car, living in a hole in a wall until he/she saves at least 1 year of salary (or reduces his/her student loans by at least a 1/3), OR racks up the credit cards to get an expensive car (or some other unnecessary things), leaving beyond his/her means. *
It has been true before, it is true now, and it will be true again. In education and college experience, you get what you put in.
* Regarding #7, I speak from experience since I was very guilty of that in my youth (in addition to several others in this list.) If you live wrong through college, you will have a bleak prospect even when the economy is booming. Live intelligent, and a 22-year old recent graduate will do fine, if not great, even in this economy.
It is bad out there, but it is not the end of times. It will be pretty f* up if we do stupid shit with our education and finances.
i have a few Gs in a savings account but i could pull it out any time i wanted it, and there would more than likely be a few bucks in interest added to it...
I used to be like that when I was younger. A few Gs in a savings accounts. It is fucking sad, and reckless as a few Gs can evaporate quickly in an emergency. I say this in retrospect because I've been there. Luckily I grew up. Even in these times, working in software is one of the most profitable and safe careers there is. Anyone who works in software and only has a few Gs in savings is doing something very stupid with his finances.
There is no default. Its designed to work both ways. Portrait or landscape is irrelevant, both devices care not about their orientation. WTF kind of argument is that?
Whether you think that's a fuzz about nothing, that's as irrelevant as unquantifiable personal opinions go in a court of law.
You might want to tell that to jurors. They seem to think that is precisely what they are there for.
Here you are being obtuse as I'm clearly referring to the subjective opinion of someone over the internet with respect to what constitutes a valid legal argument presented to a judge, as opposed to the role of jurors who must examine evidence according to the rules of the court and the laws applicable in that jurisdiction. Feel free to conflate both if it makes you feel there is validity in your argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Good choice.
Actually, that was a really good systems programming book, in style and content during the Win95 era.
Having said that, even after getting a EE, I'd suggest to continue and take some formal courses in CS, or at the very least, to put a lot of attention on software engineering. A lot of EE majors cannot write sufficiently good code for any code base of a certain size and beyond. You only get enough programming education to get your job done with a EE degree, which is fine and dandy... except that you never know when an embedded software job is going to involve a small or large code base...
So, if you like to program, and you like to complement your ME background, as a Computer Scientist, I'd suggest a EE degree. It will be better than a CS degree. Then make conscious effort to not just be a coder, but a software engineer, a good programmer that can actually build good software models.
You'll be very versatile and the hot shit if you go this way IMO... and if you intend to work with the DoD or DoE, consider getting acquainted with the field and theory of systems engineering.
I don't consider it an improvement. Maybe if you get a hard on for ruby or python.
Subjective, ain'tcha?
Just what we need.
That's what our COBOL forefathers used to say. Seriously, I will never understand why people who make their careers in software decide to make statements like that. Yes, there are always problems with language proliferation, but the alternative is stagnation. We always know more about how to make better software over time, and that inevitably brings changes in tools, languages and paradigms. And you cannot foreseen how much variation is too much (or too little) after the fact.
If there weren't people pushing the envelope (even when things go bad), we would still be wondering whether it is possible to write code without GOTO statements or higher-level languages.
From someone who has had to work with JavaScript, I can say that anything that can bring some more sanity to its syntax is a good thing. When one has to rely on a book that explicitly says to cover only its good parts (a good book mind you), that tells you a lot about the language.
Even Brendan Eich, its creator admits its shortcomings (as he was pretty much arm-twisted into rushing in it out before it was ready with a clear mandate to make it look like Java.) Yes, it can be a reliable workhorse, you can still create applications (good applications) with JavaScript as-is ... provided you tuck your elbows, true of any languages, but for a very high-level, sandboxed application language, it is not that much acceptable.
But if there is a language that needs a saner-replacement (even if it is just an abstraction as a source-code compiler), JavaScript is that language. With that analogy, I could write modern apps using Java 1.0 instead of Java 1.5 or Java 1.6, but why would you? Same in this case.
Since there's no corporate entity at stake, I don't see how this is relevant -- even if your assumption is correct.
Relevance is irrelevant among the /. fanboys.
Will likely have a different opinion. To them the constitution only applies to corporations.
citations plz.
Whether I'm a commercial user or not... why would I - or anyone - ever want web visitors to be able to grab the SQL username and password I'm using in the back end?
You are doing it wrong. Please turn your geek card. Seriously. This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen, typically done only within the bowels of them most incompetently written software ever. Configuration parameters of any kind are never, ever, ever, ever put in code. It's like Jesus Christ man, this is shit that is taught in in freaking sophomore-level programming classes (seriously.)
Poor unexpected victims the ones who pay crappy, shit-flinging code monkeys for developing their software after reading "Be a Quickass PHP/Java/VB/C#/Whatever Cowboy in 12 Hours" (and end up receiving *this*). This is 2011, not the 1960's. There is no excuse for anyone to do this kind of things while working on software for a living.
We're not doing it because it's retarded. Somehow the submitter thinks this will help people who travel for business. Excuse me?
When you land, you've got to say to yourself: "Ok...at home, I started work at 3AM, which was after the sun came up, so here, I have to get to work at....wait....what time does the sun rise here? 5PM? WTF?"
Bingo. Whoever suggested this hasn't done that much traveling (specially work-related traveling) at all.
Can humanity come up with no better use for the biggest iron than a bunch of frivolous, narcissistic ad profiling and covert spying on people living in an allegedly free country?
Yes. It ain't that hard to come to that answer, you know? The slashdot's story half-seriously hints at either a government agency (NSA) or somebody like Facebook. And obviously in Emo fashion, you took it as an statement about humanity. It's more a statement about you.
I find these type of opinions rather simplistic as other opportunities in large-scale application engineering abound:
With the exception of the first two, all others potential clients could request anonymity. Would be nice to know for what purpose this behemot is being built. Would be even better if people could rub a pair of neurons together and come with similar sample lists (it's not rocket science) as opposed to go ZOMG humanity sux plz hold me!.
Anyone else find it depressing that the two top suspects for the use of this system are Facebook and presumably a spy agency?
Can humanity come up with no better use for the biggest iron than a bunch of frivolous, narcissistic ad profiling and covert spying on people living in an allegedly free country?
No wonder F@H doesn't post more progress. Our hardware is going towards people sharing their naked bong photos and government spooks cataloging your naked bong photos.
You are trying too hard looking for something to be upset about (in a very attention-whorish manner to boot.)
then your boss' boss will know that your boss is unable to manage their team effectively and fire your entire team.
Because that is not a hypotesis but a logically inevitable consequence. Your logic is awesome.
you're an idiot.
Noooo, he's a professional. His job is to escalate and let the chips fall where they may, and in the unlikely chance of getting fired, he goes to get another job. Yeah, yeah, even in this bad economy, that's what you do.
Barring some streneous condition (having a newborn baby or a shitload of medical bills) if someone doesn't escalate things when necessary due to fear of getting fired (an implication of a near complete lack of alternatives) one has to wonder what type of technical value if any such a person has to offer considering that he surrenders his professional duties to that kind of unspoken, on-the-job black-mailing and/or ZOMG! phear of getting hopelessly unemployed.
It's still accidental, in that they don't cover the entire sky.
Not it is not, if the intention was to monitor and capture events occuring within the area of the sky being covered.
No...but sounds like a.neat.new.way.for.Russian spies.to.get in the country and back again...
You forgot your tinfoil hat.
Mod up.
Humanity needs less religion and more rational thought.
I wasn't aware the two were mutually exclusive.
Now you're aware. Time to flush baby Jesus down the toilet. You can only keep shit in your house so long before you get sick.
So, wait, your response to his is proof that the two are mutually exclusive?
Yep, I don't recall having memory management issues with C++ in the last ten years or so. Smart pointers take care of freeing RAM and the std::vector I use has bounds checking and extensive iterator checking turned on by default (even on operator[]).
Done properly C++ is as safe as Java, i.e. the only memory error is null pointer.
Java, OTOH has no stack unwinding for timely release of resources. Garbage collection is useless for anything other than RAM. Want a file or a network connection closed? You have to wrap it in a try...finally block and close it manually. Every single time, no way to automate it.
Then there's Java's brain-dead inheritance model. Get ready to do multiple inheritance manually by copying/pasting code from all the base classes. Cross your fingers that the interface never changes and you have to go and hunt down every last copy of it.
Want some "drudge"? Use Java.
Your point about the nuances of releasing resources other than memory (.ie. a network connection) are dead on. It is one of the main weaknesses of Java.
Your second point on multiple inheritance, however, makes no sense. You rarely come up with a valid need for multiple inheritance in C++. The majority of cases for modeling require single inheritance and that's it. And that's equally covered rather well in both C++ and Java. For the rare cases of using multiple inheritance (last time I ever saw it was for implementing multiple CORBA interfaces in Java 10 years ago) one simply uses a "tie", a delegation/composition mechanism using typical design patterns.
If you find yourself copy/pasting code for implementing multiple inheritance in a language that does not supports it, you are doing it wrong. Don't blame the language, blame yourself. In the general case, composition over inheritance, specially multiple inheritance. We have known this for quite some time.
What planet are your from? You mean those non-standard libraries which are almost always written in C/C++/Fortran, all of which can be directly used from C/C++. And perhaps you have no clue what you're talking about or being extremely sarcastic, but interfacing to the real world is almost always error prone, slow, difficult to debug, and a major, major pain in the ass. This reason alone is one of the reasons why so many prefer Python+C/C++/libs rather than Java.
Examples please.
Your contradicting several studies on the subject. I trust the studies. In your case, the studies clearly showed what you're depicting (at least at that time), is a by far a minority.
This may come as a shock to you, but believe it or not, there are large deployments of Windows servers with developers developing on Windows. Shocking - I know.
Citations for the studies please. I've been working on Java (mostly) since 1998, from implementing custom network stacks with it, to CORBA, to almost every stuff under the enterprisey umbrella, in 7 different companies in different industries (healthcare, finance, re-insurance, manufacturing and defense), from the very small (a 5-pple medical dictation automation startup) to the very large (40k multinational).
What lehphyro described pretty much matches what I've seen in my line of work. So either the studies are faulty, or you are misrepresenting them.
Talking about studies (and insisting in a reply on the same studies) without providing at least one reference, that's just weasel words and hand waving.
Also, regarding this:
Furthermore, the vast majority of this Java software can not run anywhere without additional code changes because of programmer short sightedness or just simple mistakes
That's an oxymoron. Such a condition is an indictment on the programmers' part, not on the concept. That's like saying OOP, the concept, is flawed just because people keep writing procedural spaghetti with OOP languages. I mean, c'mon, it is possible to write many types of non-trivial systems in C or C++ in a manner that is portable. Unfortunately, for that class of systems, C/C++ programmers fail miserable because they make mistakes and due to human short sightedness. Does that mean that C or C++ (the languages when used under a specific type of constrains) are not portable?
Same with Java. In 13 years of working with Java, I've only come across (first-hand experience) with two systems that were not portable:
1) a java implementation of the DNP protocol stack that I had to write moons ago using the javax.comm serial communication API. That stuff can only work on three platforms (Solaris, Linux and Windows) out of the many others that the JVM run. It won't work (and probably never will) if you drop it in a HP-UX hosted jvm for instance.
2) a web application hosted on WebLogic 8 SP2 that we could not deploy on WebLogic 8 SP4 and up. It contained a weird dependency on apache xerces that was also colliding with any version of WL 8 SP4 and up. I never stuck around long enough to find out if it was a problem with apache xerces itself, with WL 8 SP2 (or SP4 and up) or with the application (even after we did a serious code audit on it.)
The former out of necessity due to dealing with native libraries. The later due to a programming error somewhere. That's it. In 13 years, that's all I've ever seen. Yes, you can create a web application with dependencies to vendor-specific libraries in a web/ee container that will stop you from deploying it in another vendor's container. But then again, that's a programmer's error, not an indictment on the portability provided by the technology in question.
5. went to community college first as opposed to go straight to college and was willing to leave
with parents as much as possible vs racking up an additional $25-$35K (or even more) on loans just to be on a dorm on a 4-year college more often than not needlessly far away.
Maybe it's worthwhile to save the commute and spend the extra time studying grammar?
I kid. 4-year colleges don't teach grammar anymore either.
In any event, it seems that a grammar error is all required to invalidate an argument. Me no know grammar, but me knows the logic do not work like that. Likey forkie? Likey knifey?
What can I say? as a non-native English speaker, I still mix a and an, even after using English for 18 years. Or you can scratch that out as a/an typing error made in jets in a forum in the interweebz (OH NOES, TEH LOLCATS!!). Either way, here is a cookie, a trophy for your nomination for the Interweebz Nazi Gramm3r awards.
5. went to community college first as opposed to go straight to college and was willing to leave
with parents as much as possible vs racking up an additional $25-$35K (or even more) on loans just to be on a dorm on a 4-year college more often than not needlessly far away.
Maybe it's worthwhile to save the commute and spend the extra time studying grammar?
I kid. 4-year colleges don't teach grammar anymore either.
What can I say? as a non-native English speaker, I still mix a and an, even after using English for 18 years. Or you can scratch that out as a/an typing error made in jets in a forum in the interweebz (OH NOES, TEH LOLCATS!!). Either way, here is a cookie, a trophy for your nomination for the Interweebz Nazi Gramm3r awards.
Not really. The main advantage of objects is the loose coupling.
I always thought that well-executed structured and modular programming exhibited loose coupling all along, and that poorly executed OO programming would not (and currently does not just by taking a whiff at the majority of the code base out there written in a OOP language.)
But I guess I was dreaming or I was smoking some serious weed, and the reality is that objects are a necessary condition for loose coupling. Silly me.
That's not really true. There are people working on those things, but nobody cares because most people don't have any money.
I can't even imagine what it's like for a 22 year old graduate hoping for a future.
You make it sound like it is the end of the world. It isn't. What a 22-year old young grad should expect for a future depends on
1. What he/she did in HS (yes, it does count),
2. what discipline the youngling is graduating from. Sad but true (not to mention that a 4-year college experience is not necessarily the right thing for everyone),
3. what he/she has done through college (just take courses VS taking courses beyond the curriculum + networking + looking for internships (specially this) + study-related part time jobs at college),
4. GPA (yes, it does count),
5. went to community college first as opposed to go straight to college and was willing to leave with parents as much as possible vs racking up an additional $25-$35K (or even more) on loans just to be on a dorm on a 4-year college more often than not needlessly far away.
6. willing/unwilling to go to grad school either directly off undergrad school or on a part-time basis while working full-time
7. has not racked up unnecessary debt through college, and lives under a budget, driving a beat-up car, living in a hole in a wall until he/she saves at least 1 year of salary (or reduces his/her student loans by at least a 1/3), OR racks up the credit cards to get an expensive car (or some other unnecessary things), leaving beyond his/her means. *
It has been true before, it is true now, and it will be true again. In education and college experience, you get what you put in.
* Regarding #7, I speak from experience since I was very guilty of that in my youth (in addition to several others in this list.) If you live wrong through college, you will have a bleak prospect even when the economy is booming. Live intelligent, and a 22-year old recent graduate will do fine, if not great, even in this economy.
It is bad out there, but it is not the end of times. It will be pretty f* up if we do stupid shit with our education and finances.
i have a few Gs in a savings account but i could pull it out any time i wanted it, and there would more than likely be a few bucks in interest added to it...
I used to be like that when I was younger. A few Gs in a savings accounts. It is fucking sad, and reckless as a few Gs can evaporate quickly in an emergency. I say this in retrospect because I've been there. Luckily I grew up. Even in these times, working in software is one of the most profitable and safe careers there is. Anyone who works in software and only has a few Gs in savings is doing something very stupid with his finances.
There is no default. Its designed to work both ways. Portrait or landscape is irrelevant, both devices care not about their orientation. WTF kind of argument is that?
Ever used a Galaxy Tab?
Whether you think that's a fuzz about nothing, that's as irrelevant as unquantifiable personal opinions go in a court of law.
You might want to tell that to jurors. They seem to think that is precisely what they are there for.
Here you are being obtuse as I'm clearly referring to the subjective opinion of someone over the internet with respect to what constitutes a valid legal argument presented to a judge, as opposed to the role of jurors who must examine evidence according to the rules of the court and the laws applicable in that jurisdiction. Feel free to conflate both if it makes you feel there is validity in your argument.