Programming languages, in general, need to be human proofed.
I call bullshit, and I'll put my decades of industry experience on that. Programmers need to fucking pay attention to what they're doing. There are no languages in the world that prevent the programmer from making serious structural mistakes. It's up to the programmer to know what the fuck they're doing.
I think it more likely that programmers have become lazy
This. I've spent the last five years hiring software engineers. I've phone screened more than I can count. The Java programmers being churned out by university CS programs today are atrocious.
Pro Tip: If you mostly studied Java in college, you should go back to your alma mater and ask for a refund. No, seriously.
For another, Rust comes with an ideology. C doesn't care.
Oh, C definitely has an ideology: Do anything you want, but beware the consequences.
Mind you, I'm quite comfortable with that. It's the kids raised on Java that shit their pants when they realize that C won't protect them from themselves. Since you can't (or at least shouldn't write an operating system in Java, they keep casting about for a suitable language that isn't C. But since nearly every operating system of note is written in C or a C derivative, I think we can safely assume for now that they're just chasing their own tales.
It's because of the Not invented here syndrome (NIHS) - A mindset or corporate culture that favors internally-developed products over externally-developed products, even when the external solution is superior.
WTF? Unless you're working at Bell Labs, choosing C doesn't seem to fit into the "NIHS" you describe. Not even a little bit.
"studies have shown" is among the most egregious of lies and you damn well know it. Or maybe you don't, in which case you've got a long, hard road ahead of you.
Your referring to Damore as a "giant douchebag" highlights the problem. I've read the memo and watched multiple interviews with him and he is absolutely not. But you disagree with him so you're justifying his mistreatment.
I've been in tech a long, long time. The vast majority of people who I've worked with know how to treat their coworkers, regardless of gender, with respect. I've also encountered a handful of douchebags, enough to know one when I see one. James Damore is a douchebag, and the fact that you don't recognize it means that you are little more than a man-child.
On the contrary, you just have to have the right politics and/or be high enough up on the hierarchy of oppression to do so.
The idea that there is some horrible conspiracy against men within the tech world is utter bullshit. That said, there IS a conspiracy to root out and eject douchebags from the workplace.
Your protestations say more about you and your warped worldview than they say about what's actually happening in the workplace. Grow up. You weren't born with the right to be a douchebag.
Being myself a white male working in tech, I strongly encourage you to grow the fuck up and stop being such a giant whiner. There's no radical agenda to get white males fired, unless they happen to be giant douchebags like James Damore.
I was offered a better job at a better company with better pay in a much better part of the country. The offer was made by my former manager, who had left a year earlier in search of a better job at a better company with better pay in a much better part of the country.
Notably, he didn't try to recruit anyone else from his former company.
More than enough of those predictions have failed quite spectacularly to make all of the other yet to be reach future predictions highly suspect.
I suppose you're going to cite the brief flirtation with the coming ice age that someone a long time ago got wrong. It's pretty silly to still be dwelling on that so many years later.
In Science we need past performance to be accurate to be "reasonably certain" of those future predictions... why? Because if we are correct about the "known's" then we are also going to be correct or at least pretty close about the "predictions". And since the predictions that have past, have not only be wrong, but VERY wrong..
What you're describing isn't science, or anything to do with science. What you seem to be rambling on about is some bullshit about what it would take to convince you personally. But you know what? Nobody cares what you think. You're just a crotchety old fool who thinks they know better than everyone else. It's clear that you don't know the first thing about science or climate or even how to write a concise fucking argument.
as long as those solutions are tied to shady political wealth redistribution plans.
As if we needed any more proof that you're just a crackpot with an internet connection, you start in with the nonsense about "wealth redistribution plans".
It will only make the rich, richer in ways we [...lots of rambling nonsense...] We are carbon based life forms after all.
While you're busy wasting bandwidth, the rest of us will be trying to figure out what to do about it. We don't really care if you believe it or not. We're going to move on without you.
it is common knowledge that it began in Britain to refer to football that was administered by the football association. What I said is it is incorrect to refer to football as being administered by the British Football Association when it isn't.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you in this thread, the name doesn't come from the British Football Association. The name comes from a set of rules known as "association football" that go back more than 100 years. The fact that you continue to conflate these two terms suggests -- strongly -- that you don't know the first thing about soccer or football, let alone the history thereof.
The problem I have with Soccer is that the name comes from an abbreviation of one governing body and not the sport itself.
Not only is this a false statement, it obfuscates the fact that the term "soccer" was a British-ism (from the late 1800s, no less) that eventually fell into disuse.
I think it's disingenuous to lay the blame on the USA here. England switched to a different usage after the term had gained traction in the US, and foolishly chose a name that conflicted with other sports called "football" that had taken root in form British colonies (namely the US and Australia).
Slashdot Mirror
But most of the C in the wild is for things that should never have been written in C in the first place - hence a lot of avoidable security holes.
Citation, please.
Programming languages, in general, need to be human proofed.
I call bullshit, and I'll put my decades of industry experience on that. Programmers need to fucking pay attention to what they're doing. There are no languages in the world that prevent the programmer from making serious structural mistakes. It's up to the programmer to know what the fuck they're doing.
Fuck Rust. Seriously.
I think it more likely that programmers have become lazy
This. I've spent the last five years hiring software engineers. I've phone screened more than I can count. The Java programmers being churned out by university CS programs today are atrocious.
Pro Tip: If you mostly studied Java in college, you should go back to your alma mater and ask for a refund. No, seriously.
For another, Rust comes with an ideology. C doesn't care.
Oh, C definitely has an ideology: Do anything you want, but beware the consequences.
Mind you, I'm quite comfortable with that. It's the kids raised on Java that shit their pants when they realize that C won't protect them from themselves. Since you can't (or at least shouldn't write an operating system in Java, they keep casting about for a suitable language that isn't C. But since nearly every operating system of note is written in C or a C derivative, I think we can safely assume for now that they're just chasing their own tales.
It's because of the Not invented here syndrome (NIHS) - A mindset or corporate culture that favors internally-developed products over externally-developed products, even when the external solution is superior.
WTF? Unless you're working at Bell Labs, choosing C doesn't seem to fit into the "NIHS" you describe. Not even a little bit.
Or maybe they're just not very good writers.
No white men have won a Hugo in anything, save for the "dramatic presentation" category, in years.
They should try harder, then.
"studies have shown" is among the most egregious of lies and you damn well know it. Or maybe you don't, in which case you've got a long, hard road ahead of you.
Your referring to Damore as a "giant douchebag" highlights the problem. I've read the memo and watched multiple interviews with him and he is absolutely not. But you disagree with him so you're justifying his mistreatment.
I've been in tech a long, long time. The vast majority of people who I've worked with know how to treat their coworkers, regardless of gender, with respect. I've also encountered a handful of douchebags, enough to know one when I see one. James Damore is a douchebag, and the fact that you don't recognize it means that you are little more than a man-child.
Grow the fuck up.
It's up to you to be a better person. Better get started, you're way behind.
On the contrary, you just have to have the right politics and/or be high enough up on the hierarchy of oppression to do so.
The idea that there is some horrible conspiracy against men within the tech world is utter bullshit. That said, there IS a conspiracy to root out and eject douchebags from the workplace.
Your protestations say more about you and your warped worldview than they say about what's actually happening in the workplace. Grow up. You weren't born with the right to be a douchebag.
Being myself a white male working in tech, I strongly encourage you to grow the fuck up and stop being such a giant whiner. There's no radical agenda to get white males fired, unless they happen to be giant douchebags like James Damore.
Yeah, it's a real shame that you can't act like a giant douchebag at work these days.
I was offered a better job at a better company with better pay in a much better part of the country. The offer was made by my former manager, who had left a year earlier in search of a better job at a better company with better pay in a much better part of the country.
Notably, he didn't try to recruit anyone else from his former company.
Why isn't it? If you don't expel the CO2 from your lungs, you die.
While that may be true, that's not the reason excess CO2 is an environmental hazard.
I say this because when I was a kid, the big thing was the coming ice age in our life times preached by the science of the times.
That's largely false. The press may have made a big deal out of it, but there was no scientific consensus for global cooling or a coming ice age.
See: https://skepticalscience.com/7...
Sorry
This is insincere. You're not actually sorry.
More than enough of those predictions have failed quite spectacularly to make all of the other yet to be reach future predictions highly suspect.
I suppose you're going to cite the brief flirtation with the coming ice age that someone a long time ago got wrong. It's pretty silly to still be dwelling on that so many years later.
In Science we need past performance to be accurate to be "reasonably certain" of those future predictions... why? Because if we are correct about the "known's" then we are also going to be correct or at least pretty close about the "predictions". And since the predictions that have past, have not only be wrong, but VERY wrong..
What you're describing isn't science, or anything to do with science. What you seem to be rambling on about is some bullshit about what it would take to convince you personally. But you know what? Nobody cares what you think. You're just a crotchety old fool who thinks they know better than everyone else. It's clear that you don't know the first thing about science or climate or even how to write a concise fucking argument.
as long as those solutions are tied to shady political wealth redistribution plans.
As if we needed any more proof that you're just a crackpot with an internet connection, you start in with the nonsense about "wealth redistribution plans".
It will only make the rich, richer in ways we [...lots of rambling nonsense...] We are carbon based life forms after all.
While you're busy wasting bandwidth, the rest of us will be trying to figure out what to do about it. We don't really care if you believe it or not. We're going to move on without you.
FFS, you're a waste of carbon, too
We need about 200k years of detailed temperature data to really see how we're trending.
So you want to wait around for another 200,000 years before we do anything? That's... well, that's just stupid. Honestly.
I say this because when I was a kid, the big thing was the coming ice age in our life times preached by the science of the times.
So, what you're saying is that because someone was wrong once a long time ago, you're going to continue to believe what they said back then?
Or are you saying that because someone was wrong once, you're never going to believe anything that anyone since then has said?
I can't quite get what you're trying to imply here. Can you spell it out for us who don't speak luddite curmudgeon?
I missed when we decided that CO2 was a poison.
That's a nice straw-man you've got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.
My graduate level physics of the weather professor has proven temperatures are dropping
This sentence doesn't even make sense. You put the who in the what, now?
it is common knowledge that it began in Britain to refer to football that was administered by the football association. What I said is it is incorrect to refer to football as being administered by the British Football Association when it isn't.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you in this thread, the name doesn't come from the British Football Association. The name comes from a set of rules known as "association football" that go back more than 100 years. The fact that you continue to conflate these two terms suggests -- strongly -- that you don't know the first thing about soccer or football, let alone the history thereof.
Nope.
too much free time...who pays for them anyway?
The French are still butt-hurt that California wines have become so much better than the tasteless French wines. Now they're resorting to FUD .
Pathetic.
The problem I have with Soccer is that the name comes from an abbreviation of one governing body and not the sport itself.
Not only is this a false statement, it obfuscates the fact that the term "soccer" was a British-ism (from the late 1800s, no less) that eventually fell into disuse.
I think it's disingenuous to lay the blame on the USA here. England switched to a different usage after the term had gained traction in the US, and foolishly chose a name that conflicted with other sports called "football" that had taken root in form British colonies (namely the US and Australia).
It's literally the very first word of the article.