TFA says "it is all based on fairly standard classical pattern recognition"
I'm a science reporter. I just want to clarify your above statement -- Are you saying that this is an unprecedented breakthrough in artificial intelligence research that will lead to "thinking machines" in the next year?
You're a bit thick, aren't you? My point was that your definition was incorrect, as a programmer can "formulate solutions to problems" in a non-Turing complete language. Granted, only a subset of problems, but completely True none-the-less.
This painfully obvious observation turns your silly and unnecessary definition of programming into what you ultimately intended to say: "programmers formulate solutions to problems using programming languages"
Which is totally useless and a waste of time.
I know that you're very proud of knowing what Turing-complete means -- as you've used the term in virtually all of your other useless posts in this discussion (correctly and otherwise) -- but it's not unfamiliar to the Slashdot crowd, or to anyone who took an intro to CS course in college.
Calling yourself a great programmer and then unnecessarily denigrating Knuth makes you look like an ass. Add to that the incredibly stupid things you've said that make you look like an idiot, for example:
When you say things like this:
Why not work in a language that represents or helps formulate the problem-space abstractions better?
While going on about practicality you create a perfect storm of arrogance and ignorance that is hard to ignore -- it's like you're the best troll ever.
I call heavy-OOP usage "object spaghetti".. a nest of objects with hard to follow references to other objects. Answering simple questions such as "Does Foo() cause Bar() to be invoked?" becomes non-trivial.
So far in my studies, I've been learning about making my classes as generic as possible just for the explicit possibility of finding use for it in another project
It's a myth. Attempts to make as many of your classes as generic as possible will lead you ultimately to the dreaded ill-conceived in-house "framework".
The idea since at least the 50s , if not earlier, was that unless you needed to target the machine, to focus on the problem at hand. And the best way to do that is by abstracting away
Yeah, we're long past the point where abstraction adds simplicity, we've been adding unnecessary complexity for more than a decade.
Just take a look at this example of reading a file and displaying it's contents to the console using Java.
And most programming solutions require this because... computers are too slow today? Lacking in memory? Compilers don't produce optimized code that's usually better than hand written assembly?
This attitude, coupled with the horror show that is the state of "modern" programming languages, is the reason that we have so much shit software that uses ridiculous amounts of memory and runs slower than Rosie O'Donnell.
What programming paradigms are "pro-modular"? C certainly isn't, nor are most functional languages.
C lends itself to modular programming better than many modern OO languages.
This prof needs to get off his high horse and realize that his job is to prepare his students for the real world.
College isn't trade school. It's not the professors job to "prepare his students for the real world" -- it's his job to educate them. They're adults, not children.
what happens when the student gets their first job working with an application built with Java or.NET?
They'll use that fancy education of theirs to apply their knowledge and skills to the prescribed tool.
Maybe in their ivory tower they can say "OO is dead" but in the real world, OO is very real.
Sad, isn't it? Don't worry those ivory tower elitists will provide us with better tools and finally break the shackles binding us to this horrid failed paradigm.
far better to hand wire logic gates and address decoders to have a real feel for what's going on.
Laugh all you want, but this was a big part of my intro to CS class way back before "CS" turned in to "using Visual Studio".
Programming is a useful skill and should be taught to CS students, that isn't in question. However, college isn't (or shouldn't be) a trade school. Programming is a bit of an art, and consequently shouldn't be a major part of any CS curriculum, certainly not the dominant part as it seems is the case at far too many institutions.
That said, first year students should learn to program, I'd recommend BASIC for learning basic concepts like iteration, flow control, etc. followed by an assembly language where they can get close to the machine while learning what's really going on as they implement common algorithms and data structures.
After that, it really doesn't matter what language they use in the rest of their core courses, as there shouldn't be a need to spend any time on even a new language in the rest of their core courses. Any class time spend on "how-to do blank in language x" is a huge waste.
On OOP specifically, I agree with CMU -- it's both anti-modular and anti-parallel. In short, it's a failed paradigm. Look at the hideous mess modern languages have become as a result of the nearly religious devotion to this astonishingly over-hyped and ill-defined concept! (Before the terminally incompetent chime in: objects are great, OOP is not.)
I applaud CMU for taking action here -- let's hope other colleges and universities follow.
Well RIM has to adapt to the new business model that Apple has made so successful.
Er, I don't know that "screwing the user" is the best lesson to take from Apple's success -- I mean, what is there to gain by making it more difficult for users to load apps on their devices?
RIM is the #2 smartphone manufacturer in the world (Nokia is #1). In 2010, Blackberry was the best selling smartphone brand in the US, Canada, Latin America, and the UK.
But somehow forcing their users into a walled garden will suddenly make them more successful? I don't get it.
Clusterfuck. No third party is going to take them seriously until they can get their story straight.
I seem to remember a lot of outrage here on Slashdot last year when Apple tried to "get their story straight" when it came to iOS development:
Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs
It seems developers want to have lots of options.
No wonder their shares fell 10% today. If i owned any I'd be looking for the exits.
That would be a bit short-sighted. They're still the #2 smartphone producer in the world, and have been growing rapidly over the past three years. With Nokia (#1) likely out of the game for the rest of this year, RIM is well positioned to expand into Nokia's territory.
Thanks for that. I should have checked out the original source first
Still, it sounds like the signing process is just for App World. I just can't imagine that they'd do something as stupid as to only allow Android apps via App World. As it stands now, on just about any current BB smartphone, you can install any app you want from your computer, the web, or (at least in OS 6) from an SD card.
The walled-garden approach would be a huge mistake for RIM.
Slashdot Mirror
you can shoot so many other things in very spectacular way!
The most popular is shooting the guy who maintains your old code, in the head, by his own hand.
did the /. editors feel that we do not normally have enough language flamewars
There isn't any new Apple news, so they had to start a fight somehow...
TFA says "it is all based on fairly standard classical pattern recognition"
I'm a science reporter. I just want to clarify your above statement -- Are you saying that this is an unprecedented breakthrough in artificial intelligence research that will lead to "thinking machines" in the next year?
You're a bit thick, aren't you? My point was that your definition was incorrect, as a programmer can "formulate solutions to problems" in a non-Turing complete language. Granted, only a subset of problems, but completely True none-the-less.
This painfully obvious observation turns your silly and unnecessary definition of programming into what you ultimately intended to say: "programmers formulate solutions to problems using programming languages"
Which is totally useless and a waste of time.
I know that you're very proud of knowing what Turing-complete means -- as you've used the term in virtually all of your other useless posts in this discussion (correctly and otherwise) -- but it's not unfamiliar to the Slashdot crowd, or to anyone who took an intro to CS course in college.
Calling yourself a great programmer and then unnecessarily denigrating Knuth makes you look like an ass. Add to that the incredibly stupid things you've said that make you look like an idiot, for example:
When you say things like this:
Why not work in a language that represents or helps formulate the problem-space abstractions better?
While going on about practicality you create a perfect storm of arrogance and ignorance that is hard to ignore -- it's like you're the best troll ever.
I call heavy-OOP usage "object spaghetti" .. a nest of objects with hard to follow references to other objects. Answering simple questions such as "Does Foo() cause Bar() to be invoked?" becomes non-trivial.
Well said. I couldn't agree more.
So far in my studies, I've been learning about making my classes as generic as possible just for the explicit possibility of finding use for it in another project
It's a myth. Attempts to make as many of your classes as generic as possible will lead you ultimately to the dreaded ill-conceived in-house "framework".
The idea since at least the 50s , if not earlier, was that unless you needed to target the machine, to focus on the problem at hand. And the best way to do that is by abstracting away
Yeah, we're long past the point where abstraction adds simplicity, we've been adding unnecessary complexity for more than a decade.
Just take a look at this example of reading a file and displaying it's contents to the console using Java.
What a waste. I stand by my earlier post.
Not to dismiss my earlier reply, but I couldn't resist passing this along:
HTML5 + CSS3 is Turing Complete
Neat, apparently Eli Fox-Epstein managed to implement Rule 110 in HTML5 and CSS3 -- check it out
I know it misses the point -- but it's absolutely hilarious given your last post.
Er, you know that markup languages don't encompass the whole of non-Turing complete languages right?
I'm starting to doubt your claim of a MS in CS...
And most programming solutions require this because ... computers are too slow today? Lacking in memory? Compilers don't produce optimized code that's usually better than hand written assembly?
This attitude, coupled with the horror show that is the state of "modern" programming languages, is the reason that we have so much shit software that uses ridiculous amounts of memory and runs slower than Rosie O'Donnell.
programming is the act of formulating solutions to problems using Turing-complete languages?
So... it's not programming if you're not using a Turing complete language?
Perhaps you should have paid more attention while earning that MS degree.
And yes, I do consider Knuth to be overrated :p
Looks like a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Of course no one "needs" OO. It merely produces superior software
Having a laugh, are you?
Your post is rightly modded flamebait, but I agree with virtually all of it.
Their claim that OOP is "anti-modular" is of course absurd.
Not in the slightest. Don't confuse objects with OOP.
Using objects is not the same as OOP.
While I'm not sold on TOP, Tablizer has a lot of interesting things to say. I very much enjoy his contributions to c2.com
I'd say he's vindicated here.
Oh yeah, and how is OOP "anti-modular"?
Why don't slashdoters find this obvious?
What programming paradigms are "pro-modular"? C certainly isn't, nor are most functional languages.
C lends itself to modular programming better than many modern OO languages.
This prof needs to get off his high horse and realize that his job is to prepare his students for the real world.
College isn't trade school. It's not the professors job to "prepare his students for the real world" -- it's his job to educate them. They're adults, not children.
It's not real OO because it's only single inheritance.
Meditate on that a while and I think you'll start to understand why CMU called OOP inherently anti-modular.
Carnegie Mellon University. It's one of the best schools in the world for CS.
modular design may be the "next big thing"
In the 1970's
what happens when the student gets their first job working with an application built with Java or .NET?
They'll use that fancy education of theirs to apply their knowledge and skills to the prescribed tool.
Maybe in their ivory tower they can say "OO is dead" but in the real world, OO is very real.
Sad, isn't it? Don't worry those ivory tower elitists will provide us with better tools and finally break the shackles binding us to this horrid failed paradigm.
OO is practical for lots of problems, because it makes modelling real-world data easy.
One of OOPs biggest myths. Check out http://www.cs.loyola.edu/~binkley/772/articles/oopbad.htm. The site is a bit of a mix, and the author is married to his pet paradigm, but there's more wheat than chaff.
far better to hand wire logic gates and address decoders to have a real feel for what's going on.
Laugh all you want, but this was a big part of my intro to CS class way back before "CS" turned in to "using Visual Studio".
Programming is a useful skill and should be taught to CS students, that isn't in question. However, college isn't (or shouldn't be) a trade school. Programming is a bit of an art, and consequently shouldn't be a major part of any CS curriculum, certainly not the dominant part as it seems is the case at far too many institutions.
That said, first year students should learn to program, I'd recommend BASIC for learning basic concepts like iteration, flow control, etc. followed by an assembly language where they can get close to the machine while learning what's really going on as they implement common algorithms and data structures.
After that, it really doesn't matter what language they use in the rest of their core courses, as there shouldn't be a need to spend any time on even a new language in the rest of their core courses. Any class time spend on "how-to do blank in language x" is a huge waste.
On OOP specifically, I agree with CMU -- it's both anti-modular and anti-parallel. In short, it's a failed paradigm. Look at the hideous mess modern languages have become as a result of the nearly religious devotion to this astonishingly over-hyped and ill-defined concept! (Before the terminally incompetent chime in: objects are great, OOP is not.)
I applaud CMU for taking action here -- let's hope other colleges and universities follow.
Well RIM has to adapt to the new business model that Apple has made so successful.
Er, I don't know that "screwing the user" is the best lesson to take from Apple's success -- I mean, what is there to gain by making it more difficult for users to load apps on their devices?
RIM is the #2 smartphone manufacturer in the world (Nokia is #1). In 2010, Blackberry was the best selling smartphone brand in the US, Canada, Latin America, and the UK.
But somehow forcing their users into a walled garden will suddenly make them more successful? I don't get it.
Clusterfuck. No third party is going to take them seriously until they can get their story straight.
I seem to remember a lot of outrage here on Slashdot last year when Apple tried to "get their story straight" when it came to iOS development:
Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs
It seems developers want to have lots of options.
No wonder their shares fell 10% today. If i owned any I'd be looking for the exits.
That would be a bit short-sighted. They're still the #2 smartphone producer in the world, and have been growing rapidly over the past three years. With Nokia (#1) likely out of the game for the rest of this year, RIM is well positioned to expand into Nokia's territory.
Thanks for that. I should have checked out the original source first
Still, it sounds like the signing process is just for App World. I just can't imagine that they'd do something as stupid as to only allow Android apps via App World. As it stands now, on just about any current BB smartphone, you can install any app you want from your computer, the web, or (at least in OS 6) from an SD card.
The walled-garden approach would be a huge mistake for RIM.