But if you're going to pick a single language to be used by everyone for all purposes, then why pick something kludgy like JavaScript?
Because it is the only language that is universally supported in browsers. Would be nice were that not the case, but it is the fact that we have to live with.
I'm undecided, though, whether Javascript on the server is the direction to go, or something-else-on-the-client.
I would much rather a better-designed language than javascript in the browser, but that's not going to happen (at least not with broad enough support), and I'm highly suspicious of the "compile-to-javascript" hacks for the browser, so javascript on the server it is. If javascript were a truly awful language, it would be different, but javascript is good enough...
I don't know, I don't think having to know several languages is that much of a chore. I kind of prefer languages to be specialized for specific purposes, because you can't be the best at everything. I don't know how much sense it would make to use SQL syntax for geometry shaders, or for asm to be used as a HTML dom manipulation. When you write a language to support everything, it is just as much detail to learn as learning several languages (where 'learn' means have a good understanding of API, objects, methods, etc. and not just a rudimentary comprehension of syntax).
I work constantly in C, Objective-C, C++, Ruby, bash, and javascript. I have worked in Common Lisp, Pascal, various assemblers, Python, Dylan, various nasty proprietary "4GL" languages, AppleScript, Visual BASIC, C#, Java...
There is no benefit to flipping between high-level scripting languages throughout the day; it is a complete waste of cognitive effort.
Can any real developer explain why having a javascript backend would be any different to any other backend in such a way where something jaw-dropping could only be the result of the javascript backend?
The quote that you referenced is pure hyperbole--in fact, it is bordering on bullshit. There's nothing a javascript backend can do that a Ruby, Python, Perl or whatever backend cannot. However, it sure would reduce cognitive load to not switch languages between browser and server ends. Personally, I've always liked Ruby (and Python before it) very much, and I like Ruby on Rails. But I'm watching node.js for this very reason--no matter how elegant RoR wraps up the process of sending dynamic javascript over to the browser for execution, it's still butt-ugly and an all-around pain to be switching between two languages, especially on such a small scale. It's not like when I switch from web dev one day (or preferably, week) to native client--sometimes it's Ruby for a minute then javascript for a minute then back to Ruby. Anybody who thinks that is not affecting their productivity is just not paying attention;-)
Not at all. My point is simply for the inventor to prove that he knows how to make his invention--in other words that he has actually completed the hard part of inventing, and is not trying to patent a wish list or a dream. I see no relevance, to the purpose of a patent, in requiring an inventor to prove that he knows how to make money with his invention.
His other point of note was the threat that, if patent-holders are forced to create a product to enforce their patents, he would just create a useless podcast to justify holding his podcasting patent.
I'd have no problem with that. I don't care if the product is a turd and a total failure in the marketplace, what I care about is proof that the alleged inventor actually knows how to implement his invention--too many "software" patents out there are more of a wish list of features than a description of an actual invention.
While I don't hire people very often (6 in the past 6 years), for what it's worth: I have NEVER checked an applicant's online presence. Unless you're applying for a job at a social network type of company, it should be irrelevant.
It seems that slashdotters think that the title of a patent IS the patent. For any patent title "A method for doing X," it does not mean that any method for doing X is covered by the patent. The patent describes the specific method of doing X. Now, sometimes the specific method is still totally obvious, not novel, and/or has plenty of prior art. But just because the title says "Method and system to create, transmit, receive and process information, including an address to further information" does not mean or imply that it covers every method for doing so.
The problem is not so much that the non-experts here assume that the patent covers all methods for doing X; the problem is that the patent trolls and their attorneys will pretend that the patent does so, threaten small companies using any other method of doing X, and ultimately, perhaps, try to confuse a jury between the patented method and some other method by focusing on the result rather than the method.
So, although the patent does not actually cover all methods of doing X, it is actually reasonable to assume that is exactly what the trolls are claiming.
Actually I wouldn't mind having a black box in the car recording everything... IF I have access to the data. I've contemplated wiring up cameras and building a small server to continuously record front and rear views, so if there's an accident or something and there's questions about what happened I can pull up the video and say "Here, watch what happened.". Having had friends who've been dinged for rear-ending someone because they got rear-ended and shoved forward, I think it'd be wonderful to be able to pull up the black box record and prove that I was stationary with the engine at idle and the brake fully applied when the collision occurred and could not have been the cause.
Exactly this. 3 years ago the wife was the middle car of 3 sitting stopped at a light. A 4th car rear-ended the car behind her hard enough to shove them all together and push the front car through the crosswalk. 3 years of constant pain, spinal surgery, physical therapy, countless outpatient procedures, cognitive therapy, and because the damages to the cars were not major, the at-fault driver's insurance company has maintained that she could not possibly have been injured in that accident. The latest is their bullshit engineering analysis, claiming that the at-fault driver was going 3-4 miles per hour--to me that is so obviously an impossible conclusion that I'm astounded that a licensed engineer would put his name to it--I just hope their lawyer is not able to baffle a jury into believing such a steaming pile. Responding police officer did not remotely do her job, and damn I wish the at-fault car would have had a black-box data recorder, and that the data from it would have been captured at that time.
I am just saying that there are a lot of individuals who get marked as transgender today, but who got assigned the wrong gender as an infant, usually through forced sex assignment (surgery).
Ah, OK. I did not get that you were relating two things to each other, as opposed to just listing two independent sources of gender confusion.
I feel that the minor adjustments that we need to make to accommodate these people pale in comparison...
Especially when you consider that there are physical/genetic abnormalities for which we must already be prepared to make these adjustments.
Denying these adjustments to people based on some evaluation would be rather like having wheelchair ramps, and denying their use to people who are walking on crutches.
Actually there are far more intersex people than transgender. And many transgender people are in fact intersex people who suffered forced sex assignment surgery as an infant.
? Did you really intend to ignore those who freely choose sex assignment as adults???
providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said.
Really? The NSA is now handing out classified intelligence to corporations like party favors??? No, I don't think so.
we just disagree on how to describe the counting. When I program the sorting algorithm to sort these applicants, I have all of the 100 interns beating all of the 52 non-interns who didn't get hired. so it's not 52 beating out 50. It's 100 beating out 52. and because my sorting algorithm is going to intermix the non-interns too, I get something like: AbAbAbAAbAbAbAbAAb. Which means that the very first intern hired beats out all 199 others. Th every last intern hired beats out 1 non intern hired, plus 52 non interns not hired, plus 48 interns not hired. You need to remember that those 52 interns who got hired beat out way more than just 50. They beat out 98, some beat out the other interns too.
Bullshit. Only 2 interns beat out non-interns because of their internship. Any other way of counting it is simply incorrect.
...because the fact that they interned mean that they instantly beat out 52 graduates who did not intern and didn't get hired.
No, 50 interns got hired. Any one of those 50 interns might have been one of the 2 "extra". The two extra did have a leg up, and beat 52 non-interns, but each intern had only a 1/25 chance of being one of the "extras". In other words, you need to remember that 52 beat out 50, not 2 beat out 50.
you don't need to understand statistics when you're discussing absolute and countable numbers. there they are.
Maybe not, but you do need to at least understand how to count.
I can agree to a contract below minimum wage laws. If you want your government to get in the way of two consenting adults, then you've got other problems. It's a contract, we both agreed. And you'll note that minimum wage laws are for employees, not contractors, and not interns.
You're pretty ignorant of labor laws. An "employee" is what the law says it is, and you cannot avoid employment law simply by referring to an employee as a "contractor" or as an "intern"--in fact doing so is a good way to get hit with large fines if you ever get caught. If someone performs work for you, and you have control over the where/when/how of that work, that person is an employee.
Young people don't deserve to be paid for their labour.
OK, well, there it is, finally--you are an absolute sack of shit--go fuck yourself.
Welcome to independence. Have you ever signed your pay cheque?
Yes. For the past 22 years actually. Well, technically, since 2008 I don't sign anything--I pay a 3rd-party to do that for me;-)
Yes, it is. If you did actual work, it was an evasion of the minimum wage laws.
for the company to give me a four month interview is not immoral.
It stopped being an interview when you started doing useful work.
For me to take advantage of it, and wind up competing with six other interns is not illegal. For me to get the job offer when others did not is not immoral.
I agree.
They didn't refuse to pay me. They promissed that they wouldn't pay me.
Utter and complete bullshit. If you had refused their kind promise not to pay you, then they would have paid you? No? Well then, you should be literally embarrassed to have even written a comment so stupid.
What's your problem here? Someone who didn't expect to get paid, and could leave at any time if they didn't like the work, stuck around and didn't get paid. They never needed to do the work. They could have walked out the door at any time. They literally had nothing to lose.
Good for you. My problem is with the immorality and illegality of a company refusing to pay its entry-level workers. And even more so in industries where cabals of companies have colluded to create a situation where young people believe that they can't get, and indeed do not even deserve to be, paid for their labor. If you really can't understand why that is wrong, then you're either too deep in denial about how you were exploited to be able to recognize the truth, or you're a sack-of-shit sociopath who can't wait to be in the position where you yourself can profit from free labor.
Slashdot Mirror
but how are the node.js libraries in terms of maturity and completeness for most business or media or forum tasks?
And that is exactly why I said "I'm watching node.js" as opposed to "I'm switching to node.js" ;-)
But if you're going to pick a single language to be used by everyone for all purposes, then why pick something kludgy like JavaScript?
Because it is the only language that is universally supported in browsers. Would be nice were that not the case, but it is the fact that we have to live with.
I'm undecided, though, whether Javascript on the server is the direction to go, or something-else-on-the-client.
I would much rather a better-designed language than javascript in the browser, but that's not going to happen (at least not with broad enough support), and I'm highly suspicious of the "compile-to-javascript" hacks for the browser, so javascript on the server it is. If javascript were a truly awful language, it would be different, but javascript is good enough...
I don't know, I don't think having to know several languages is that much of a chore. I kind of prefer languages to be specialized for specific purposes, because you can't be the best at everything. I don't know how much sense it would make to use SQL syntax for geometry shaders, or for asm to be used as a HTML dom manipulation. When you write a language to support everything, it is just as much detail to learn as learning several languages (where 'learn' means have a good understanding of API, objects, methods, etc. and not just a rudimentary comprehension of syntax).
I work constantly in C, Objective-C, C++, Ruby, bash, and javascript. I have worked in Common Lisp, Pascal, various assemblers, Python, Dylan, various nasty proprietary "4GL" languages, AppleScript, Visual BASIC, C#, Java...
There is no benefit to flipping between high-level scripting languages throughout the day; it is a complete waste of cognitive effort.
Can any real developer explain why having a javascript backend would be any different to any other backend in such a way where something jaw-dropping could only be the result of the javascript backend?
The quote that you referenced is pure hyperbole--in fact, it is bordering on bullshit. There's nothing a javascript backend can do that a Ruby, Python, Perl or whatever backend cannot. However, it sure would reduce cognitive load to not switch languages between browser and server ends. Personally, I've always liked Ruby (and Python before it) very much, and I like Ruby on Rails. But I'm watching node.js for this very reason--no matter how elegant RoR wraps up the process of sending dynamic javascript over to the browser for execution, it's still butt-ugly and an all-around pain to be switching between two languages, especially on such a small scale. It's not like when I switch from web dev one day (or preferably, week) to native client--sometimes it's Ruby for a minute then javascript for a minute then back to Ruby. Anybody who thinks that is not affecting their productivity is just not paying attention ;-)
Those of us from the beginning beg to differ.
You could look at the archives..if you are brave enough look into the face of how wrong you are.
Been reading it daily for over 10 years, since at least 2000 I think. Your memory is selective.
Unfortunately, "IT" became the craze, and all you need to feel empowered in that is a phillips screwdriver.
Bullshit. You also need at least 3 different sizes of Torx to get anywhere these days ;-)
this is supposed to be 'news for nerds'
This site is not, nor has it ever been, only news for nerds. To claim otherwise is bullshit, pure and simple.
This might be true, but in all fairness and practicality, do you really think that three years worth of college level calculus are needed by everyone?
Oh, hell no! I was thinking 2 semesters ;-)
Calculus is required as a foundation to understand some things in Statistics...
Calculus is required as a foundation to understand the world around you, and that's why it should be required.
You are far too forgiving.
Not at all. My point is simply for the inventor to prove that he knows how to make his invention--in other words that he has actually completed the hard part of inventing, and is not trying to patent a wish list or a dream. I see no relevance, to the purpose of a patent, in requiring an inventor to prove that he knows how to make money with his invention.
His other point of note was the threat that, if patent-holders are forced to create a product to enforce their patents, he would just create a useless podcast to justify holding his podcasting patent.
I'd have no problem with that. I don't care if the product is a turd and a total failure in the marketplace, what I care about is proof that the alleged inventor actually knows how to implement his invention--too many "software" patents out there are more of a wish list of features than a description of an actual invention.
While I don't hire people very often (6 in the past 6 years), for what it's worth: I have NEVER checked an applicant's online presence. Unless you're applying for a job at a social network type of company, it should be irrelevant.
not sure what the point is even if you typed it in wingdings it would not obscure the meaning of the original message
As SCO once demonstrated so aptly...
It seems that slashdotters think that the title of a patent IS the patent. For any patent title "A method for doing X," it does not mean that any method for doing X is covered by the patent. The patent describes the specific method of doing X. Now, sometimes the specific method is still totally obvious, not novel, and/or has plenty of prior art. But just because the title says "Method and system to create, transmit, receive and process information, including an address to further information" does not mean or imply that it covers every method for doing so.
The problem is not so much that the non-experts here assume that the patent covers all methods for doing X; the problem is that the patent trolls and their attorneys will pretend that the patent does so, threaten small companies using any other method of doing X, and ultimately, perhaps, try to confuse a jury between the patented method and some other method by focusing on the result rather than the method.
So, although the patent does not actually cover all methods of doing X, it is actually reasonable to assume that is exactly what the trolls are claiming.
Actually I wouldn't mind having a black box in the car recording everything... IF I have access to the data. I've contemplated wiring up cameras and building a small server to continuously record front and rear views, so if there's an accident or something and there's questions about what happened I can pull up the video and say "Here, watch what happened.". Having had friends who've been dinged for rear-ending someone because they got rear-ended and shoved forward, I think it'd be wonderful to be able to pull up the black box record and prove that I was stationary with the engine at idle and the brake fully applied when the collision occurred and could not have been the cause.
Exactly this. 3 years ago the wife was the middle car of 3 sitting stopped at a light. A 4th car rear-ended the car behind her hard enough to shove them all together and push the front car through the crosswalk. 3 years of constant pain, spinal surgery, physical therapy, countless outpatient procedures, cognitive therapy, and because the damages to the cars were not major, the at-fault driver's insurance company has maintained that she could not possibly have been injured in that accident. The latest is their bullshit engineering analysis, claiming that the at-fault driver was going 3-4 miles per hour--to me that is so obviously an impossible conclusion that I'm astounded that a licensed engineer would put his name to it--I just hope their lawyer is not able to baffle a jury into believing such a steaming pile. Responding police officer did not remotely do her job, and damn I wish the at-fault car would have had a black-box data recorder, and that the data from it would have been captured at that time.
I am just saying that there are a lot of individuals who get marked as transgender today, but who got assigned the wrong gender as an infant, usually through forced sex assignment (surgery).
Ah, OK. I did not get that you were relating two things to each other, as opposed to just listing two independent sources of gender confusion.
I feel that the minor adjustments that we need to make to accommodate these people pale in comparison...
Especially when you consider that there are physical/genetic abnormalities for which we must already be prepared to make these adjustments.
Denying these adjustments to people based on some evaluation would be rather like having wheelchair ramps, and denying their use to people who are walking on crutches.
Actually there are far more intersex people than transgender. And many transgender people are in fact intersex people who suffered forced sex assignment surgery as an infant.
? Did you really intend to ignore those who freely choose sex assignment as adults???
it does however cover 99.999% of the job
Actually, no it does not. Depending on exactly what definition you want to use, it covers between 98.1% and 99.982% ;-)
providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said.
Really? The NSA is now handing out classified intelligence to corporations like party favors??? No, I don't think so.
we just disagree on how to describe the counting. When I program the sorting algorithm to sort these applicants, I have all of the 100 interns beating all of the 52 non-interns who didn't get hired. so it's not 52 beating out 50. It's 100 beating out 52. and because my sorting algorithm is going to intermix the non-interns too, I get something like: AbAbAbAAbAbAbAbAAb. Which means that the very first intern hired beats out all 199 others. Th every last intern hired beats out 1 non intern hired, plus 52 non interns not hired, plus 48 interns not hired. You need to remember that those 52 interns who got hired beat out way more than just 50. They beat out 98, some beat out the other interns too.
Bullshit. Only 2 interns beat out non-interns because of their internship. Any other way of counting it is simply incorrect.
...because the fact that they interned mean that they instantly beat out 52 graduates who did not intern and didn't get hired.
No, 50 interns got hired. Any one of those 50 interns might have been one of the 2 "extra". The two extra did have a leg up, and beat 52 non-interns, but each intern had only a 1/25 chance of being one of the "extras". In other words, you need to remember that 52 beat out 50, not 2 beat out 50.
you don't need to understand statistics when you're discussing absolute and countable numbers. there they are.
Maybe not, but you do need to at least understand how to count.
I can agree to a contract below minimum wage laws. If you want your government to get in the way of two consenting adults, then you've got other problems. It's a contract, we both agreed. And you'll note that minimum wage laws are for employees, not contractors, and not interns.
You're pretty ignorant of labor laws. An "employee" is what the law says it is, and you cannot avoid employment law simply by referring to an employee as a "contractor" or as an "intern"--in fact doing so is a good way to get hit with large fines if you ever get caught. If someone performs work for you, and you have control over the where/when/how of that work, that person is an employee.
Young people don't deserve to be paid for their labour.
OK, well, there it is, finally--you are an absolute sack of shit--go fuck yourself.
Welcome to independence. Have you ever signed your pay cheque?
Yes. For the past 22 years actually. Well, technically, since 2008 I don't sign anything--I pay a 3rd-party to do that for me ;-)
I agreed to it going in. that's no illegal.
Yes, it is. If you did actual work, it was an evasion of the minimum wage laws.
for the company to give me a four month interview is not immoral.
It stopped being an interview when you started doing useful work.
For me to take advantage of it, and wind up competing with six other interns is not illegal. For me to get the job offer when others did not is not immoral.
I agree.
They didn't refuse to pay me. They promissed that they wouldn't pay me.
Utter and complete bullshit. If you had refused their kind promise not to pay you, then they would have paid you? No? Well then, you should be literally embarrassed to have even written a comment so stupid.
What's your problem here? Someone who didn't expect to get paid, and could leave at any time if they didn't like the work, stuck around and didn't get paid. They never needed to do the work. They could have walked out the door at any time. They literally had nothing to lose.
Good for you. My problem is with the immorality and illegality of a company refusing to pay its entry-level workers. And even more so in industries where cabals of companies have colluded to create a situation where young people believe that they can't get, and indeed do not even deserve to be, paid for their labor. If you really can't understand why that is wrong, then you're either too deep in denial about how you were exploited to be able to recognize the truth, or you're a sack-of-shit sociopath who can't wait to be in the position where you yourself can profit from free labor.