Yeah, I'd agree with that. I'm a big fan of Java, but knowing C is very useful. The more different styles of coding you know, the better. I think Java, C, LISP would be my quick list of languages one should learn if you're wanting to get a quick but broad overview of the different kind of approaches that are out their for solving problems in code. Of course, you can quibble about the details in a list like this, but as long as you experience different kinds of languages, you usually get a healthy set of ideas to use... and, as you say, an appreciation for what's going on under the hood.
I've not written any android apps, but I know a bunch of people who have (on the javagaming website). I've not heard any issues with compatibility at all. When someone has an app to test, it appears to run on everyone's Android devices without too much hassle.
As I say, this is second hand, but these guys would be complaining if there was a problem here. And they ain't. Admittedly, these are actual developers and not industry schills, so what would they know?:o)
So... all that server hardware and custom infrastructure can be thrown together with a click of the fingers eh? Apple are good at making bubblegum coloured computers. Their meta-enterprise level engineering accomplishments are... nothing at all.
It clashes with "the right tool for the job". A professional would use the right tools, but if you have the wrong tools you can't point out their inappropriateness?
I use JS every damn day - it's my bread and butter. The language is awful. Plenty of people have offered detailed arguments here as to the language's deficiencies (including me. look through the comments to see them, I won't repeat them here)
How the fuck did you get modded 5 insightful for casting all JS's detractors as bad programmers? An ad-hominem attack is +5 insightful?
For fuck's sake, what a fucking popularity contest!
Utter rubbish. I don't like Python because I hate the significant white space thing. BUT Python is considerably better designed than JS. JS has a pile of huge warts to it that prevent its suitablility for large scale engineering. Python does not share any of those weaknesses:
Everything is global no namespaces no include/import!!!! no block level scope
the array iterator busts array prototype extension and vice versa no way to avoid prototype extension clashes no packages / modules
I have the book on my desk right now. I've read it page to page. It points out the good bits, true, but also some of the very bad things about the language. It's premise that you can just use the pretty bits and the other bits won't matter at all is a fallacy unless you code in a vacuum that doesn't include other people.
Lines of code is not how production languages should be judged. Generally, software engineers aren't trying to type a solution as quick as possible. There is usually some thinking going on, so the typing isn't the bottleneck anyway. And then you usually want it to work without side effects and be maintainable. Languages like Java deal very well with complexity, and when something does fail, it fails early and loudly.
JS creaks at the seams when you do anything more than a quick hack with it. The more layers your code has become more places for errors to occur silently - with a code failure happening somewhere else perhaps miles from the actual issue.
Software Engineers are not generally writing quick, one-off hacks, and this is why the whole idea of lines-of-code as an important software metric is not really all that important. We write large systems that must be maintainable, extensible, read well and perform well. Java does that very well, JavaScript does not.
Yeah, this excuse that all JS's warts are actually to do with the DOM is a load of rubbish. It has a ton of issues that would concern any software engineer with half a brain (which makes me wonder about a lot of these comments in this thread)
Everything is global no namespaces no include/import!!!! no block level scope
the array iterator busts array prototype extension and vice versa no way to avoid prototype extension clashes no packages / modules
Its a fucking awful language. The fact that it has one or two good features does not cover the fact that the other 90% is a pile of steaming shit.
Douglas Crockford in 'Javascript: The Good Parts' uses fairly similar language to describe JS: "more than it's share of bad parts", "a steaming pile of good intentions and blunders"
And this is from someone who *likes* the language.
JS has the C++ defense - if you only use a small subset of the language, it's very nice. But that's crap unless you never work with other programmers or use any other libraries or code snippets off the web. Because even if you are the *perfect* programmer (you are, aren't you?) noone else will share your dedication to excellence, and your code will end up polluted with the crap that infects the language (everything is global, no namespaces, no include/import!!!!, no block level scope, the array iterator busts array prototype extension and vice versa, no way to avoid prototype extension clashes)
As someone who uses JS a lot, I do agree that prototyping languages are intriguing and I'm really fond of JS's object literals - a feature I'd like in other languages. But JS has so many warts that it should just be shot. At least in it's current form.
If you could rewrite and come up with a JSNext or something which resolved all the flaws - properly! Then it would be worthwhile, but in insisting on continuing to support existing bad practices, these standards bodies ensure that web development will continue to be a pile of steaming crap.
I decent JS rewrite would be priceless to the future of web development, but like the stupid C++ backwards compatibility with C (especially retaining the same build model) , we are again sacrificing the sanity of future programmers to deal with a one off transition issue.
Never enough time to do it properly, always enough time to do it again.
As a Java developer of many years experience, I've been using NB since about version 5. That's when it started being better than Eclipse and Eclipse starting turning into a plugin nightmare.
NZ governments are pretty trustworthy and free from corruption. I don't share the (apparently common view here) that any ability to filter content must automatically and inevitably lead to abuse. Any attempt to filter content inappropriately would cause a public uproar.
It seems to me that Americans do not trust their governments. I don't think that most NZ'rs are that paranoid. So long as the police and the government prove that they are using the system as it was intended then I think they need to be trusted to do their jobs. If they abuse the system then it can be removed.
Slashdot Mirror
So... that tinfoil hat is working out well for ya, huh?
Meh!
I don't care. I know the deal with Google. Everyone knows the deal with Google - they mine your data so they can target ads, you get useful software.
I don't mind Google's targeted ads so I feel no need for a tinfoil hat over this one.
If Google were trying to break into my bank account, I'd be worried, but I don't fear non-obtrusive advertising.
You guys really need to learn to grow a sense of humour.
moron
What a load of utter crap. Thats the least logical thing I've seen on slashdot in years, and that's saying a lot
Refactoring does not mean just renaming your variables
Someone's drunk the koolaide :o)
Uh-huh. I've written Gui code on Linux that I've run on Windows and Mac with no changes. I've never done that with C, C++, Perl or Python.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. I'm a big fan of Java, but knowing C is very useful. The more different styles of coding you know, the better. I think Java, C, LISP would be my quick list of languages one should learn if you're wanting to get a quick but broad overview of the different kind of approaches that are out their for solving problems in code. Of course, you can quibble about the details in a list like this, but as long as you experience different kinds of languages, you usually get a healthy set of ideas to use... and, as you say, an appreciation for what's going on under the hood.
I've not written any android apps, but I know a bunch of people who have (on the javagaming website). I've not heard any issues with compatibility at all. When someone has an app to test, it appears to run on everyone's Android devices without too much hassle.
As I say, this is second hand, but these guys would be complaining if there was a problem here. And they ain't. Admittedly, these are actual developers and not industry schills, so what would they know? :o)
Just wondering... has it ever occurred to you that you might be a geek?
Geez, someone's been drinking the koolaide.
So... all that server hardware and custom infrastructure can be thrown together with a click of the fingers eh? Apple are good at making bubblegum coloured computers. Their meta-enterprise level engineering accomplishments are... nothing at all.
It clashes with "the right tool for the job". A professional would use the right tools, but if you have the wrong tools you can't point out their inappropriateness?
I use JS every damn day - it's my bread and butter. The language is awful. Plenty of people have offered detailed arguments here as to the language's deficiencies (including me. look through the comments to see them, I won't repeat them here)
How the fuck did you get modded 5 insightful for casting all JS's detractors as bad programmers? An ad-hominem attack is +5 insightful?
For fuck's sake, what a fucking popularity contest!
Utter rubbish. I don't like Python because I hate the significant white space thing. BUT Python is considerably better designed than JS. JS has a pile of huge warts to it that prevent its suitablility for large scale engineering. Python does not share any of those weaknesses:
Everything is global
no namespaces
no include/import!!!!
no block level scope
the array iterator busts array prototype extension and vice versa
no way to avoid prototype extension clashes
no packages / modules
I have the book on my desk right now. I've read it page to page. It points out the good bits, true, but also some of the very bad things about the language. It's premise that you can just use the pretty bits and the other bits won't matter at all is a fallacy unless you code in a vacuum that doesn't include other people.
I absolutely agree.
BUT people *are* trying to write large systems with JavaScript now (applications on the web) and for those things, JS's deficiencies DO matter.
Lines of code is not how production languages should be judged. Generally, software engineers aren't trying to type a solution as quick as possible. There is usually some thinking going on, so the typing isn't the bottleneck anyway. And then you usually want it to work without side effects and be maintainable. Languages like Java deal very well with complexity, and when something does fail, it fails early and loudly.
JS creaks at the seams when you do anything more than a quick hack with it. The more layers your code has become more places for errors to occur silently - with a code failure happening somewhere else perhaps miles from the actual issue.
Software Engineers are not generally writing quick, one-off hacks, and this is why the whole idea of lines-of-code as an important software metric is not really all that important. We write large systems that must be maintainable, extensible, read well and perform well. Java does that very well, JavaScript does not.
JS does not have 'a couple of warts', it's mostly warts with a few nice ideas buried under them.
Yeah, this excuse that all JS's warts are actually to do with the DOM is a load of rubbish. It has a ton of issues that would concern any software engineer with half a brain (which makes me wonder about a lot of these comments in this thread)
Rubbish.
Everything is global
no namespaces
no include/import!!!!
no block level scope
the array iterator busts array prototype extension and vice versa
no way to avoid prototype extension clashes
no packages / modules
None of those are anything to do with the DOM.
Its a fucking awful language. The fact that it has one or two good features does not cover the fact that the other 90% is a pile of steaming shit.
Douglas Crockford in 'Javascript: The Good Parts' uses fairly similar language to describe JS: "more than it's share of bad parts", "a steaming pile of good intentions and blunders"
And this is from someone who *likes* the language.
JS has the C++ defense - if you only use a small subset of the language, it's very nice. But that's crap unless you never work with other programmers or use any other libraries or code snippets off the web. Because even if you are the *perfect* programmer (you are, aren't you?) noone else will share your dedication to excellence, and your code will end up polluted with the crap that infects the language (everything is global, no namespaces, no include/import!!!!, no block level scope, the array iterator busts array prototype extension and vice versa, no way to avoid prototype extension clashes)
As someone who uses JS a lot, I do agree that prototyping languages are intriguing and I'm really fond of JS's object literals - a feature I'd like in other languages. But JS has so many warts that it should just be shot. At least in it's current form.
If you could rewrite and come up with a JSNext or something which resolved all the flaws - properly! Then it would be worthwhile, but in insisting on continuing to support existing bad practices, these standards bodies ensure that web development will continue to be a pile of steaming crap.
I decent JS rewrite would be priceless to the future of web development, but like the stupid C++ backwards compatibility with C (especially retaining the same build model) , we are again sacrificing the sanity of future programmers to deal with a one off transition issue.
Never enough time to do it properly, always enough time to do it again.
*sigh*
That's just rubbish. I moved to NB from Eclipse because NB works better for me (and not just for J2EE, either, most of my work is client-side)
As a Java developer of many years experience, I've been using NB since about version 5. That's when it started being better than Eclipse and Eclipse starting turning into a plugin nightmare.
I have absolutely no problem with this. At all.
NZ governments are pretty trustworthy and free from corruption. I don't share the (apparently common view here) that any ability to filter content must automatically and inevitably lead to abuse. Any attempt to filter content inappropriately would cause a public uproar.
It seems to me that Americans do not trust their governments. I don't think that most NZ'rs are that paranoid. So long as the police and the government prove that they are using the system as it was intended then I think they need to be trusted to do their jobs. If they abuse the system then it can be removed.