>i'm sorry, but the likes of James Coplien and Warren Montgomery (Bell Labs in the late 80's and early 90's) have far more "real" experience at developing "real" applications that Bjarne will ever have.
Last time I checked Jim was still using C++. Enough said.
> By your standards a 1880s Sword is more efficient for cutting up food meat than a mere fork.
You might want to rethink that metaphor. I always find cutting my steak with a fork awfully tricky;)
> If they are inefficient as you claim, tell me how come we see more and more systems everyday being built on Java (esp. in Banking). Because they're a) fast enough b) are fashionable (or at least were) c) have a big pool of developers that are skilled enough.
of course c) is a function of c)
Lots of things drive the adoption of a technology in banking, but it's rarely technical reasons:(
> No. Tools that contain unnecessary pitfalls are flawed. Agreed, but having programmed in C++ for longer than I care to remember, I don't think there are as many unnecessary pitfalls in C++ as people make out. auto_ptr maybe, and a couple of other standard library bits. Most of the other potentially dangerous things are a) necessary in some contexts and b) easily avoided.
> If the language allows people to write unsafe code, people will write unsafe code. Especially if writing safe code is harder. Writing unsafe C++ is quite difficult if you know some basic rules.
> Of course, the people who write unsafe code are still to blame, but the tools are bad, too. Horses for courses. C++ isn't the best language for everything.
> On the other hand, I have to think that if someone makes a recording that can continue to sell for 50+ years, that person deserves some sort of financial reward for it.
Yes, and they get 50 years of financial rewards for it. Think about it - 50 years!
> Any loon who tries to tell a bunch of kids that (a) Noah's ark was real and (b) There were dinosaurs on it should have their license to teach revoked.
Doh.. use some common sense. Of course the dinosaurs didn't get on the ark: That's how they becamse extinct!;)
> Now if you believe (like many) that the brain is no more than a big computing unit, then it must abides by those rules and the sleep is nothing else > than the physical manifestation of 'garbage disposal'. Keep it up for too long and it will... crash.
My brain may be a computer, but it sure as hell doesn't run Windows;)
That would be far too cheap, sensible and low-tech for our beloved leader St. Anthony.
Think about it, we're trying to address a simple problem: We'd like to ascertain, to a reasonable level of confidence, that people driving their cars a) have a valid license and b) valid insurance.
Most other countries in the world solve this problem by saying that you need to carry your driving license and car papers when you drive, and show them when asked.
In Britain, they give you seven days to show them at a police station of your choice, which presumably worked nicely in 1935 when, according to Miss Marples, even the criminals were honest. Clearly spending 5 pounds on changing the law so you have to have to present it at the roadside would be far too stupid.
I'd love to invoke Hanlon's razor (Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice...), but nobody can really be that stupid. Not even a politician.
Re:"Macs aren't more expensive..[shipped] with an
on
Leopard Vs. Vista
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
> A Mac would be cheaper if Apple didn't have to develop OS X. Of course it wouldn't be a Mac either.
No, look it up, it's true - of the 50% or so of the electorate that could be bothered to vote, approximately one third voted for labour. Two thirds voted AGAINST Labour.
And 50% didn't show up, but that's a different story.
> What in the heck are you talking about? They're trying to keep people from stealing stuff, and the tag comes off when you get it home. How long before thieves realise you can rip they RFID tag off, since it's on a disposable paper label?
Nope, it's about inventory control, that's why they use it on items "with complex sizing". As in "Do we have any size 42 suits with extra long legs left"?
> This is not a government project. > It is a project paid for by the government but not a government project.
The government has blown $24 billion of our money on a bunch of companies with a long track record of failing in exactly this kind of project. The government has negotiated a crap contract (what exactly is wrong with: "I hand you $12 billion when you deliver a working system", rather than "I hand you lots of money upfront, and then more, and then more, whether you deliver or not") They clearly fucked up the requirements analysis big time. They fucked up the project management, or at the very least the control & governance.
They keep on doing this with every single big IT project that they do. And worst off all, they're using our fucking money to do it.
What else do they need to do before you blame them?
By analogy, if you paid me say 10% of your salary to look after your house, garden, driveway and car for you, and you discovered that a year later your car's broken down, your garden's overgrown, your driveway full of rubbish, and your roof's leaking, then it's not my fault because I'd subcontracted the jobs to someone else? In that case, I have a business proposition for you;)
> P.S. If you are going to hospital I would recommend Denmark. absolutely the best medical care money cant buy. Its free.
Not free, just paid for by the Danes.
I agree, if you are about to die the NHS can be phantastic, but if you are only mildly sick, it's atrocious.
Two other points: 1. > And its extaordinarily cost effective. The UK spends less per > head on medical expenses than any other G8 economy. %50 less than > the US for eqivalent service. And that includes astonishing amounts of wasted money on management consultants, PFI, etc - the rest of the world must be really inefficient !
2. If you get sick in the UK, and you're not an EU citizen, you will be treated, but they will eventually land you with the bill. Of course enforcing payment is another matter, but two weeks in intensivec care don't come cheap....
> About the plans for UK ID cards, that is. While their plans are awful and broken and will damage civil liberites irreperably and lead to all sorts of trouble, at least I know that they are incapable of implementing those plans, or indeed *any* IT projec
I'm not so worried that they'll succeed, more that they completely fuck it up and spend a huge amount of MY money on it. And end up with something worse in every respect than the status quo.
> In the end, the British healthcare system is going to be faster and cheaper because of Connecting for Health. $24 billion better?
Oh look, the pigs are flying in such a pretty formation today.
Given that the NHS is now laying off Doctors and Nurses for lack of cash, I think there are better ways to spend that amount of money. And I'm not talking about PFI.
> This just reeks of cronyism and idiocy. If for no other reason, I'd vote Blair out of office for this -- it's insane We tried. Two thirds of the popular vote were against him at the last election.
Which explains why he's still in office, think he has a mandate, and is exporting "democracy" to the middle east.
> The first charge alleges that she possessed information on her computer hard drive likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of > terrorism... Possession of items such as these is an offence under Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Pen. Paper. A-Z (Streetmap). Mobile Phone. Computer.
No, the artists get the copyright - so if you compose, sing, or play an instrument you may get some form of copyright. Prancing around and miming does not qualify you;)
Slashdot Mirror
>i'm sorry, but the likes of James Coplien and Warren Montgomery (Bell Labs in the late 80's and early 90's) have far more "real" experience at developing "real" applications that Bjarne will ever have.
Last time I checked Jim was still using C++. Enough said.
If you're having problems reading Bjarne's books, you're simply having probems reading. Or programming. Or both.
Sorry, but they're among the best and clearest programming books around.
> By your standards a 1880s Sword is more efficient for cutting up food meat than a mere fork.
;)
:(
You might want to rethink that metaphor. I always find cutting my steak with a fork awfully tricky
> If they are inefficient as you claim, tell me how come we see more and more systems everyday being built on Java (esp. in Banking).
Because they're
a) fast enough
b) are fashionable (or at least were)
c) have a big pool of developers that are skilled enough.
of course c) is a function of c)
Lots of things drive the adoption of a technology in banking, but it's rarely technical reasons
> No. Tools that contain unnecessary pitfalls are flawed.
Agreed, but having programmed in C++ for longer than I care to remember, I don't think there are as many unnecessary pitfalls in C++ as people make out. auto_ptr maybe, and a couple of other standard library bits. Most of the other potentially dangerous things are a) necessary in some contexts and b) easily avoided.
> If the language allows people to write unsafe code, people will write unsafe code. Especially if writing safe code is harder.
Writing unsafe C++ is quite difficult if you know some basic rules.
> Of course, the people who write unsafe code are still to blame, but the tools are bad, too.
Horses for courses. C++ isn't the best language for everything.
Not as funny as his paper on overloading whitespace: Generalizing Overloading for C++2000 ;)
> On the other hand, I have to think that if someone makes a recording that can continue to sell for 50+ years, that person deserves some sort of financial reward for it.
Yes, and they get 50 years of financial rewards for it. Think about it - 50 years!
> Any loon who tries to tell a bunch of kids that (a) Noah's ark was real and (b) There were dinosaurs on it should have their license to teach revoked.
;)
Doh.. use some common sense. Of course the dinosaurs didn't get on the ark: That's how they becamse extinct!
> Now if you believe (like many) that the brain is no more than a big computing unit, then it must abides by those rules and the sleep is nothing else > than the physical manifestation of 'garbage disposal'. Keep it up for too long and it will... crash.
;)
My brain may be a computer, but it sure as hell doesn't run Windows
That would be far too cheap, sensible and low-tech for our beloved leader St. Anthony.
..), but nobody can really be that stupid. Not even a politician.
Think about it, we're trying to address a simple problem: We'd like to ascertain, to a reasonable level of confidence, that people driving their cars a) have a valid license and b) valid insurance.
Most other countries in the world solve this problem by saying that you need to carry your driving license and car papers when you drive, and show them when asked.
In Britain, they give you seven days to show them at a police station of your choice, which presumably worked nicely in 1935 when, according to Miss Marples, even the criminals were honest. Clearly spending 5 pounds on changing the law so you have to have to present it at the roadside would be far too stupid.
I'd love to invoke Hanlon's razor (Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice.
> A Mac would be cheaper if Apple didn't have to develop OS X.
Of course it wouldn't be a Mac either.
No, look it up, it's true - of the 50% or so of the electorate that could be bothered to vote, approximately one third voted for labour. Two thirds voted AGAINST Labour.
And 50% didn't show up, but that's a different story.
> What in the heck are you talking about? They're trying to keep people from stealing stuff, and the tag comes off when you get it home.
How long before thieves realise you can rip they RFID tag off, since it's on a disposable paper label?
Nope, it's about inventory control, that's why they use it on items "with complex sizing". As in "Do we have any size 42 suits with extra long legs left"?
> This is not a government project.
;)
> It is a project paid for by the government but not a government project.
The government has blown $24 billion of our money on a bunch of companies with a long track record of failing in exactly this kind of project.
The government has negotiated a crap contract (what exactly is wrong with: "I hand you $12 billion when you deliver a working system", rather than "I hand you lots of money upfront, and then more, and then more, whether you deliver or not")
They clearly fucked up the requirements analysis big time.
They fucked up the project management, or at the very least the control & governance.
They keep on doing this with every single big IT project that they do.
And worst off all, they're using our fucking money to do it.
What else do they need to do before you blame them?
By analogy, if you paid me say 10% of your salary to look after your house, garden, driveway and car for you, and you discovered that a year later your car's broken down, your garden's overgrown, your driveway full of rubbish, and your roof's leaking, then it's not my fault because I'd subcontracted the jobs to someone else? In that case, I have a business proposition for you
> But yet for all the arguments above, the NHS still delivers a more efficient and cost-effective service than the private sector...
;)
That's an interesting assertion. So interesting, in fact, that I'd love to see it backed up by some figures.
> P.S. If you are going to hospital I would recommend Denmark.
absolutely the best medical care money cant buy. Its free.
Not free, just paid for by the Danes.
I agree, if you are about to die the NHS can be phantastic, but if you are only mildly sick, it's atrocious.
Two other points:
1. > And its extaordinarily cost effective. The UK spends less per
> head on medical expenses than any other G8 economy. %50 less than
> the US for eqivalent service.
And that includes astonishing amounts of wasted money on management consultants, PFI, etc - the rest of the world must be really inefficient !
2. If you get sick in the UK, and you're not an EU citizen, you will be treated, but they will eventually land you with the bill. Of course enforcing payment is another matter, but two weeks in intensivec care don't come cheap....
If someone had actually sat down and analysed the requirements properly, they would have discovered that
* implementing what they claim they want would cost 60 billion.
* They can't get away with spending that money.
That should have lead to the project being shelved, or scaled back to something that's actually needed AND affordable.
But of course this was a government project, so the decision was based on politics and spin.
> About the plans for UK ID cards, that is. While their plans are awful and broken and will damage civil liberites irreperably and lead to all sorts of trouble, at least I know that they are incapable of implementing those plans, or indeed *any* IT projec
I'm not so worried that they'll succeed, more that they completely fuck it up and spend a huge amount of MY money on it. And end up with something worse in every respect than the status quo.
I'll bet UPS didn't build their system in one go though. And they probably didn't outsource it, either.
> If it works. And if it couldn't have been done for less than $24B...
;)
I couldn't have put it better myself
> In the end, the British healthcare system is going to be faster and cheaper because of Connecting for Health.
$24 billion better?
Oh look, the pigs are flying in such a pretty formation today.
Given that the NHS is now laying off Doctors and Nurses for lack of cash, I think there are better ways to spend that amount of money. And I'm not talking about PFI.
> This just reeks of cronyism and idiocy. If for no other reason, I'd vote Blair out of office for this -- it's insane
We tried. Two thirds of the popular vote were against him at the last election.
Which explains why he's still in office, think he has a mandate, and is exporting "democracy" to the middle east.
> Things here in the UK always seem to be thought of as failing or disaster before they're completed.
> I say wait until the project's finished before kicking it to the ground.
No, I think after it's gone 100% over budget and wasted $12 billion (that's 6-8 billon sterling) of taxpayer's money seems a perfectly good time.
> The first charge alleges that she possessed information on her computer hard drive likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of > terrorism... Possession of items such as these is an offence under Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Pen. Paper. A-Z (Streetmap). Mobile Phone. Computer.
Shoes! Very useful for terrorists.
Not at all - Labour is quite capable of raising taxes without any excuse whatsoever.
No, the artists get the copyright - so if you compose, sing, or play an instrument you may get some form of copyright. Prancing around and miming does not qualify you ;)