What makes you think that this was intentional and not just a typo?
Your agenda. Your post is clearly biased on defending Ruby. That would be Ok, we're all biased somehow - but experience taught me that tech people has a strong inclination to include lies and fallacies while arguing on subjects he/she has a bias on.
"Javascript" is a word massively disseminated - very improbable that one professional that makes a living in this field would misspell this word the way you did. You didn't switched or missed a letter, you inserted a space between two recognizable words, the kind of error my mom or sister would do (as "javascript" is not a recognizable symbol for them, but "java" and "script" are) , but not my brother (as he works on the field too and, so, "javascript" is an easily recognizable symbol for him).
Of course, perhaps you are not a professional on the field - but so, why are you debating about Ruby?
Granted, "improbable" is not the same to "impossible". But, again, your assertiveness on the matter, the lack of space for a debate and the apparent carefully picken options to compare with (making Ruby looks good) makes me think you have an Agenda on the subject.
What 2013 demonstrated us is that UX is not user driven anymore, but marketing driven.
The User Interface is not trimmed anymore to help the user on solving his/her problems or executing his/her jobs.
The User Interface is, now, trimmed to help someone else's job. And this job is to sell something to the user (at best), or simply take something from him/her (at worst).
This Mac is not the most expensive Apple Computer. To tell you true true, is in the historical average for its class: in the nineties, the Quadra 950 was sold for 7200USD - something as 11200USD nowadays, as calculated by http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ .
Apple Computer was never a cheap computer shop. Since the Apple II era, their computers was far more expensive than the competition. It's a computing niche, where quality and user satisfaction worths more than money.
The cost/benefit ratio is far from reasonable, if you ask my opinion. But the same can be said about Ferrari cars, and you can bet your damn mouse I would drive a Ferrari if I could.
Re:Professionalism does matter.
on
Is Ruby Dying?
·
· Score: 1
Thanks God Steve Jobs never worked for you.
Re:Wrong. We in industry are very upset with Ruby.
on
Is Ruby Dying?
·
· Score: 1
Those of us in industry are very fed up with Ruby and Ruby on Rails, but I think it's much more because of their communities than it is because of the technologies themselves.
One of these here. I'm on this "industry" since 25 years ago (even more, if you count teenager's jobs for peanuts).
I'm already got more than I wanted from RoR (but I like Ruby, the Language, very much!), PHP and the vast majority of 'web technologies" we have now.
I don't know if there's a polite way of saying this, but far too many of the people involved with those communities are utter disasters who in turn create utterly disastrous software systems. For every Ruby success story we may hear about, there are probably 10 or 20 total disasters that aren't as widely known. The disasters are usually because of the people involved, not the technologies.
I think the worst problem with our "industry", currently, it's exactly this: "politeness".
We're in a engineering area, damnit! The darn thing works or does not, and if it doesn't, sack it and replace it with something that does, for Fuck's sake!!
However, we must deal with children that goes crying to papa (the manager) how mean we're by hurting their feelings pinpointing their bad, useless or simply plain wrong code!!!!!! (perfectly indented, following every single code standard known by man - and yet, bad, useless or simply plain wrong).
Those of us who've been in the industry for many years, if not decades, and have had to engage in hiring over the past 8 or so years will know what I'm talking about. We have to deal with candidates who have no formal education at all in computer science, software engineering, or a related field. They don't even have the equivalent of a single four-month community college programming course. If we're lucky, they've read a single book about web development using Ruby on Rails.
Lack of formal education is a problem, mas frankly, not the worst. The worst son-of-a-bitches I had the questionable pleasure to work with were Masters on something - most of them, utterly dumbasses that can write a Mastering Tesis, but not a single line of code.
Not that all dumbasses have formal education - the problem is not the formal education, but the dumb asses!
We need to learn how to correctly identify dumb asses, have them formal education or not.
(This is ignoring their other serious flaws, such as the complete inability to dress or act with even a minimal level of professionalism; I've interviewed some of these hipsters while they're wearing t-shirts with dumbass sayings on them, and fedora hats.)
Huge mistake. You're promoting input, not output.
The guy that's wearing a T-Shirt just don't care about your personal standards. He knows (or think it knows) he know how to deliver a job, and he thinks that's what's matter. And I agree with them.
The worst dumb ass of all if the one that prefer to hire another dumb ass that's correctly dressed, than a good professional that deliver correctly good code.
You need to hire good coders, not good actors/actresses. Software is not a movie.
Now, having been in the industry for years, I can see right through these people. When they get past HR, they don't get past me. But I can't be everywhere. I've worked with a few organizations lately where the people making the hiring or purchasing decisions in the past didn't know better, and now these organizations have ended up with their very own Ruby on Rails disasters.
And then all you managed to do is prevent RoR disasters, but not the disasters themselves.
Again, the worst dumb assess I know (of maintain code) wear suits or any other kind of "professionally correct dressings".
(and I like fedora hats, by thr way - but wouldn't use them on the office - it's too hot when it's hot, and too cold when it's cold!).
Re:Node.js? Dude, that was so last year
on
Is Ruby Dying?
·
· Score: 1
Sadly, those kids are hired and keep chasing the latest and greatest (including jobs) and leave their one trick pony app behind that was written in "the next big thing" language with no knowledge transfer or support.
What can I say? Taking advantage from dumbasses with money to lose is not a crime and everybody (including the ones that can't code) must eat!
Re:Short answer: no
on
Is Ruby Dying?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Nice try (intentionally spelling "java script" is not cute, dude!).
While having a powerful desktop for main computing (as I'm a developer), my old Athlon XP 3GHz and 3GRam still cuts their way on common cotidianous tasks.
You *DON'T* need a octa-core processor with 16G Ram for browsing the web, god damnit!
Yes, I'm creating a scenario in my head which doesn't exist, and I'm claiming this scenario is better than the current one.
I'm proud to say I'm not the only one. Lincoln, Mandela, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and many more also did it. I'm hugely far from even being comparable with these guys, but at least I'm on the right side.:-)
(Of course I can be wrong, but one must convince me I'm wrong with solid arguments, not fallacies).
Restricting firearms to "responsible people" should not be a problem. We already "restrict" automobiles to "responsible people", and nobody is bitching about.
I could agree with you if you counter-argument by pointing up that besides all that "automobile access restrictions", a lot of people are still dying in outrageously avoidable car accidents caused by human negligence and imprudence and the same would happen on firearms, but I don't accept any of your current arguments. They aren't even logical, as you rush up into conclusions without even caring about any cause-effect relationship.
At very least, give some contemporary examples about what you're defending.
The question is whether the number of "right hands" with guns outweighs the number of "wrong hands" with guns. National murder stats comparing the US and other western countries suggests not. And stats comparing homes with guns versus homes without guns within just the US also suggests not. Therefore by your own argument, the net effect is negative, and the justification for firearms failed.
Under no circumstances I implied that *anyone* should carry a firearm. I defends that *anyone* has the right to possess a firearm, if its proven he/she can do it properly. The same way we do with... automobiles, by God's sake! Only a small fraction of the population will manage to do it? No problem. Even if only 1 in each 10 are considered able to carry firearms, it's already enough to any criminal be forced to think twice before attacking someone - 1 in each 10 of every people around the action is a threat now.
Your logic is twisted. You're still ignoring the huge public healthcare problem that is dealing with drugs addicts. Hell, we can't even manage correctly the already legalized drugs, as alcohol.
It's not impossible (while my believes are in the opposite direction) that not enough people can be safely allowed to carry firearms, and then your argument that the net effect is negative. But by the same logic, the already legalized drugs are already a huge problem, and legalizing even more drugs will just worse the "net effect" on public healthcare - the exact same argument you happily used on firearms.
Only a twisted, fallacious mind would dismiss my (or even yours) arguments as failed, because no one here (including me) provided any hard evidences of what we're arguing. We're exchanging opinions, and debating them with logic.
But less and less people around here appears to care about logic nowadays.
"You are just ignoring that drugs are, easy, the biggest motivator for crime"
No he isn't. He is fully aware of what you aren't: *Illegal* drugs are the biggest motivator for crime.
Well, following your logic, legal drugs are not a problem, right?
What do you have to say about... Alcohol? This is a legal one - are you proposing that all that deaths directly and indirectly caused by alcohol abuse are statistical fraud?
So restricting sale of guns in the US would have an impact not just in the US, but across the whole of the Americas because you'd have the whole continent competing largely only for the weapons that are already in circulation. Some come from the likes of Africa too, but that's much easier to deal with in terms of policing because it has to cross the Atlantic.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
The vast arsenal on criminal's hands nowadays are formed by old heavy weapons used in wars around the world.
Russian weapons. Israeli weapons. Some came from Africa, some from Balkans. As soon as a war ends, all that weapons that are not destroyed just switch hands..
Slashdot Mirror
Weird.
J2EE, J2ME (!!) and J2SE appears to be all in the same level: oblivion. Even "Java Platform" is almost done.
But, "Java the Language" is still strong (because Android, I think).
Oracle effect, perhaps?
Damn... I should stop drinking... I don't believe I posted TWICE on the same subject... X-|
What makes you think that this was intentional and not just a typo?
Your agenda. Your post is clearly biased on defending Ruby. That would be Ok, we're all biased somehow - but experience taught me that tech people has a strong inclination to include lies and fallacies while arguing on subjects he/she has a bias on.
"Javascript" is a word massively disseminated - very improbable that one professional that makes a living in this field would misspell this word the way you did. You didn't switched or missed a letter, you inserted a space between two recognizable words, the kind of error my mom or sister would do (as "javascript" is not a recognizable symbol for them, but "java" and "script" are) , but not my brother (as he works on the field too and, so, "javascript" is an easily recognizable symbol for him).
Of course, perhaps you are not a professional on the field - but so, why are you debating about Ruby?
Granted, "improbable" is not the same to "impossible". But, again, your assertiveness on the matter, the lack of space for a debate and the apparent carefully picken options to compare with (making Ruby looks good) makes me think you have an Agenda on the subject.
You spelled Javascript wrongly (it was not an accident, uh?), and your query about Ruby is too generic: you're counting queries about the stones too.
Your post is a fallacy, and it worries me that enough people find it "insightful".
Here, I made a good query for you. Ruby is in *serious* declining.
What 2013 demonstrated us is that UX is not user driven anymore, but marketing driven.
The User Interface is not trimmed anymore to help the user on solving his/her problems or executing his/her jobs.
The User Interface is, now, trimmed to help someone else's job. And this job is to sell something to the user (at best), or simply take something from him/her (at worst).
This Mac is not the most expensive Apple Computer. To tell you true true, is in the historical average for its class: in the nineties, the Quadra 950 was sold for 7200USD - something as 11200USD nowadays, as calculated by http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ .
Apple Computer was never a cheap computer shop. Since the Apple II era, their computers was far more expensive than the competition. It's a computing niche, where quality and user satisfaction worths more than money.
The cost/benefit ratio is far from reasonable, if you ask my opinion. But the same can be said about Ferrari cars, and you can bet your damn mouse I would drive a Ferrari if I could.
Thanks God Steve Jobs never worked for you.
Those of us in industry are very fed up with Ruby and Ruby on Rails, but I think it's much more because of their communities than it is because of the technologies themselves.
One of these here. I'm on this "industry" since 25 years ago (even more, if you count teenager's jobs for peanuts).
I'm already got more than I wanted from RoR (but I like Ruby, the Language, very much!), PHP and the vast majority of 'web technologies" we have now.
I don't know if there's a polite way of saying this, but far too many of the people involved with those communities are utter disasters who in turn create utterly disastrous software systems. For every Ruby success story we may hear about, there are probably 10 or 20 total disasters that aren't as widely known. The disasters are usually because of the people involved, not the technologies.
I think the worst problem with our "industry", currently, it's exactly this: "politeness".
We're in a engineering area, damnit! The darn thing works or does not, and if it doesn't, sack it and replace it with something that does, for Fuck's sake!!
However, we must deal with children that goes crying to papa (the manager) how mean we're by hurting their feelings pinpointing their bad, useless or simply plain wrong code!!!!!! (perfectly indented, following every single code standard known by man - and yet, bad, useless or simply plain wrong).
Those of us who've been in the industry for many years, if not decades, and have had to engage in hiring over the past 8 or so years will know what I'm talking about. We have to deal with candidates who have no formal education at all in computer science, software engineering, or a related field. They don't even have the equivalent of a single four-month community college programming course. If we're lucky, they've read a single book about web development using Ruby on Rails.
Lack of formal education is a problem, mas frankly, not the worst. The worst son-of-a-bitches I had the questionable pleasure to work with were Masters on something - most of them, utterly dumbasses that can write a Mastering Tesis, but not a single line of code.
Not that all dumbasses have formal education - the problem is not the formal education, but the dumb asses!
We need to learn how to correctly identify dumb asses, have them formal education or not.
(This is ignoring their other serious flaws, such as the complete inability to dress or act with even a minimal level of professionalism; I've interviewed some of these hipsters while they're wearing t-shirts with dumbass sayings on them, and fedora hats.)
Huge mistake. You're promoting input, not output.
The guy that's wearing a T-Shirt just don't care about your personal standards. He knows (or think it knows) he know how to deliver a job, and he thinks that's what's matter. And I agree with them.
The worst dumb ass of all if the one that prefer to hire another dumb ass that's correctly dressed, than a good professional that deliver correctly good code.
You need to hire good coders, not good actors/actresses. Software is not a movie.
Now, having been in the industry for years, I can see right through these people. When they get past HR, they don't get past me. But I can't be everywhere. I've worked with a few organizations lately where the people making the hiring or purchasing decisions in the past didn't know better, and now these organizations have ended up with their very own Ruby on Rails disasters.
And then all you managed to do is prevent RoR disasters, but not the disasters themselves.
Again, the worst dumb assess I know (of maintain code) wear suits or any other kind of "professionally correct dressings".
(and I like fedora hats, by thr way - but wouldn't use them on the office - it's too hot when it's hot, and too cold when it's cold!).
The Ruby comm
I hope you're right.
THe best salaries around here, nowadays, are paid to COBOL programmers! :-)
Whoa! I took where you stop and look what I found!
Java, as it appears, still matters!
Sadly, those kids are hired and keep chasing the latest and greatest (including jobs) and leave their one trick pony app behind that was written in "the next big thing" language with no knowledge transfer or support.
What can I say? Taking advantage from dumbasses with money to lose is not a crime and everybody (including the ones that can't code) must eat!
Nice try (intentionally spelling "java script" is not cute, dude!).
Here, I fixed it to you.
Not a surprise, anyway.
The cool kids are using Go for their server apps and infrastructure projects.
While their parents are taking real jobs and paying the bills!
"not everybody" != "no one". ;-)
Aren't desktop computers basically dying ? They keep on trying to replicate something that users already no longer use. Pretty sad
Edit: even the captcha agrees with me: sadists
You don't have a job, do you?
Because, you know, not everybody makes a living browsing the Facebook using a tablet...
Wishful thinking.
Let's make a deal: *first*, the gene therapy works. *THEN* we assume we can afford to lose the data the grandparent talks about.
While having a powerful desktop for main computing (as I'm a developer), my old Athlon XP 3GHz and 3GRam still cuts their way on common cotidianous tasks.
You *DON'T* need a octa-core processor with 16G Ram for browsing the web, god damnit!
Yes, I'm creating a scenario in my head which doesn't exist, and I'm claiming this scenario is better than the current one.
I'm proud to say I'm not the only one. Lincoln, Mandela, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and many more also did it. I'm hugely far from even being comparable with these guys, but at least I'm on the right side. :-)
(Of course I can be wrong, but one must convince me I'm wrong with solid arguments, not fallacies).
Restricting firearms to "responsible people" should not be a problem. We already "restrict" automobiles to "responsible people", and nobody is bitching about.
I could agree with you if you counter-argument by pointing up that besides all that "automobile access restrictions", a lot of people are still dying in outrageously avoidable car accidents caused by human negligence and imprudence and the same would happen on firearms, but I don't accept any of your current arguments. They aren't even logical, as you rush up into conclusions without even caring about any cause-effect relationship.
At very least, give some contemporary examples about what you're defending.
And every Slashdot post should be logical, rational, unbiased and constructive. :-)
From the very same link you give:
overall += 2 * getIndexPartPreCalc(level_of_crime);
overall += getIndexPartPreCalc(crime_increasing);
overall += getIndexPartPreCalc(-safe_alone_daylight);
overall += getIndexPartPreCalc(-safe_alone_night);
overall += getIndexPartPreCalc(worried_home_broken);
overall += getIndexPartPreCalc(worried_mugged_robbed);
overall += getIndexPartPreCalc(worried_car_stolen);
overall += getIndexPartPreCalc(worried_things_car_stolen);
overall += getIndexPartPreCalc(worried_attacked);
overall += getIndexPartPreCalc(worried_insulted);
overall += getIndexPartPreCalc(worried_skin_ethnic_religion);
overall += getIndexPartPreCalc(problem_drugs);
overall += getIndexPartPreCalc(problem_property_crimes);
overall += getIndexPartPreCalc(problem_violent_crimes);
overall += getIndexPartPreCalc(problem_corruption_bribery);
Violent crimes are just one of the components from the index you proposes. I was talking about murderer by firearms.
However, this is not about penis, I mean, guns measurements. But I don't envy your ranking anyway.
The question is whether the number of "right hands" with guns outweighs the number of "wrong hands" with guns. National murder stats comparing the US and other western countries suggests not. And stats comparing homes with guns versus homes without guns within just the US also suggests not. Therefore by your own argument, the net effect is negative, and the justification for firearms failed.
Under no circumstances I implied that *anyone* should carry a firearm. I defends that *anyone* has the right to possess a firearm, if its proven he/she can do it properly. The same way we do with... automobiles, by God's sake! Only a small fraction of the population will manage to do it? No problem. Even if only 1 in each 10 are considered able to carry firearms, it's already enough to any criminal be forced to think twice before attacking someone - 1 in each 10 of every people around the action is a threat now.
Your logic is twisted. You're still ignoring the huge public healthcare problem that is dealing with drugs addicts. Hell, we can't even manage correctly the already legalized drugs, as alcohol.
It's not impossible (while my believes are in the opposite direction) that not enough people can be safely allowed to carry firearms, and then your argument that the net effect is negative. But by the same logic, the already legalized drugs are already a huge problem, and legalizing even more drugs will just worse the "net effect" on public healthcare - the exact same argument you happily used on firearms.
Only a twisted, fallacious mind would dismiss my (or even yours) arguments as failed, because no one here (including me) provided any hard evidences of what we're arguing. We're exchanging opinions, and debating them with logic.
But less and less people around here appears to care about logic nowadays.
if you legalised drugs, you'd take away the biggest motivator for crime.
Alcohol is legal. And yet, crime is declining in areas where it's forbidden to sell alcohol after 10:00 PM here in São Paulo.
I'm sorry, but you statement is just plain wrong.
"You are just ignoring that drugs are, easy, the biggest motivator for crime"
No he isn't. He is fully aware of what you aren't: *Illegal* drugs are the biggest motivator for crime.
Well, following your logic, legal drugs are not a problem, right?
What do you have to say about... Alcohol? This is a legal one - are you proposing that all that deaths directly and indirectly caused by alcohol abuse are statistical fraud?
So restricting sale of guns in the US would have an impact not just in the US, but across the whole of the Americas because you'd have the whole continent competing largely only for the weapons that are already in circulation. Some come from the likes of Africa too, but that's much easier to deal with in terms of policing because it has to cross the Atlantic.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
The vast arsenal on criminal's hands nowadays are formed by old heavy weapons used in wars around the world.
Russian weapons. Israeli weapons. Some came from Africa, some from Balkans. As soon as a war ends, all that weapons that are not destroyed just switch hands..
Besides agreeing with you on your arguments, I don't on your conclusion.
A Society is not a amorphous form of life. It's a collection of.. People. Society is and does what the People are and do.
Ergo, people are the problem. And we must cope with this.
And then, perhaps, we can change the Society by correcting what's wrong with us.