By this metric Java is still kicking everyone's butts. Also... *all* programming languages are "dying".
I've been around the block enough times to know that if you want to survive as a programmer you had better damn well learn to program. And not in just one language, you need to know a survey of language types. Ruby is just one type in the same category as Python and Javascript. If you really want to survive 20 years as a programmer (like I did) you need to branch out more.
I think Andy is complaining about the bad CS degree mills that I've run into. I am definitely in the camp that a CS degree should be *harder* to get. That said, we should probably re-evaluate our interview process as an industry. Instead of grilling a kid on if he has skill X... we need some way to determine if they are smart, competent, and motivated.
If you can't attract smart, competent, and motivated people... maybe you need to re-examine your organisation.
Now that you mention it, I *can* hang around for DAYS on wifi. My record so far is two and a half *days* on wifi. But, I usually use the phone as a mobile computer while traveling. In those situations it's a little TV for around 4 to 5 hours and it's a phone for 2 to 4 hours during lay overs and while navigating airports. For several hours before and after, it's a GPS... but it gets to be plugged into a car during those times.
I bought a triple sized battery for my 4G phone. My phone is friggin' enormous now... but I can use it on 4G for 12 to 16 hours. I have yet to completely kill it... even while using it on coast to coast flights.
I remember when I was in grad school 10 years ago the experimental 3D systems would give me horrible headaches after a few hours of use. I remember thinking that if we shipped 3D systems like those to average consumers it would be a disaster. Other grad students reported vertigo and one even vomited after an extended session.
The saving grace of these systems might be that they aren't fully immersive so you would avoid the vertigo we felt standing inside the CAVE. The headaches came from the shutter systems we used. I'm glad 3D in theaters today uses some sort of polarized light these are much more pleasant to look at.
I think as long as 3D remains a "treat" instead of a default experience we'll be okay. The fact remains that no matter what the system used to produce 3D illusions on 2D surfaces we are ultimately causing a pair of binocular eyes to see objects that are not there. Seeing things that aren't there just sounds bad for you.
I put forward the same offer (and I'm not anonymous) with the caveat that I get a major share of the corporation built around the idea I select.
Just remember who will have the power in our working relationship. Me. You can't make your idea real. I can.
By way of analogy... I already have the sword. Your idea might be for a gun. Last I checked, a real sword beats and imaginary gun.
If someone can truly send me a great idea that 'just needs a programmer', I will commit to writing the code. Out of the hundreds of 'ideas' that I get pitched 99% of them are already done (and often better than their plans), the 'idea owners' haven't even taken the time to review the market. Additionally, rarely does an 'idea' just need a programmer, it typically needs lots of capital to get over the hump of turning and idea into reality.
If your idea can pass a few simple questions - How large is the potential market? - Has this idea been done before, what makes it unique? It is patented, patentable? - What have you invested in it?
Yes, a lot of self-described "idea guys" have lousy ideas and aren't interested in details like programming. Is perhaps the thesis here that idea guys can be taught to program, but mere programmers can't be taught to have ideas? Because that's a bit insulting.
Very insightful. Somehow, I had missed the implicit insult. However, I think the insult was accidental. The author is trying to convince these oh-so-bright "idea guys" that they are oh-so-bright and can make their ideas come true themselves. The desired effect is these oh-so-bright "idea guys" will discover just how outlandish it is to think that three inexperienced graduate students could recreate all the functionality of Windows 7 using Javascript and HTML5.
I'm open to suggestions. Personally, I've been trying to figure out how to create my own company that would attract and retain the best technology talent... I just haven't figured out how we're going to put bread on the table yet.
I had read the terse "no" to mean the Universe wasn't Turing Complete and I didn't read the original question very closely.
I can accept the idea the Universe isn't a Turing machine. But, it has to be at least as complex if not more so. This means that Kurt Gödel's ideas would apply to mathematical theorem about the Universe... leading to the conclusion you can't understand everything with one theory.
For example... try proving 1 + 1 = 2 without resorting to Set theory.
It doesn't apply for an even more basic reason. We don't require a theory of everything to be complete, only consistent. Moreover, most physicists would be happy with "just" a theory that hasn't been proved to be inconsistent.
If the theory is consistent it will be incomplete requiring another theory to cover the incompleteness. If the theory is complete it will be self contradictory.
Based on my back of the napkin calculations it would take a space craft like Voyager approximately 23,000 years to get to the planet. Someone want to correct me? Please? I certainly hope I did my math wrong. Sounds like we are stuck here.
Slashdot Mirror
Ruby is standing stronger than ever.
By this metric Java is still kicking everyone's butts. Also... *all* programming languages are "dying".
I've been around the block enough times to know that if you want to survive as a programmer you had better damn well learn to program. And not in just one language, you need to know a survey of language types. Ruby is just one type in the same category as Python and Javascript. If you really want to survive 20 years as a programmer (like I did) you need to branch out more.
Now, you kids get off my lawn.
I think Andy is complaining about the bad CS degree mills that I've run into. I am definitely in the camp that a CS degree should be *harder* to get. That said, we should probably re-evaluate our interview process as an industry. Instead of grilling a kid on if he has skill X ... we need some way to determine if they are smart, competent, and motivated.
If you can't attract smart, competent, and motivated people ... maybe you need to re-examine your organisation.
Now that you mention it, I *can* hang around for DAYS on wifi. My record so far is two and a half *days* on wifi. But, I usually use the phone as a mobile computer while traveling. In those situations it's a little TV for around 4 to 5 hours and it's a phone for 2 to 4 hours during lay overs and while navigating airports. For several hours before and after, it's a GPS... but it gets to be plugged into a car during those times.
I bought a triple sized battery for my 4G phone. My phone is friggin' enormous now... but I can use it on 4G for 12 to 16 hours. I have yet to completely kill it... even while using it on coast to coast flights.
Yes... bitches. Now give me a bonus.
I can feel the FUD storm building...
I remember when I was in grad school 10 years ago the experimental 3D systems would give me horrible headaches after a few hours of use. I remember thinking that if we shipped 3D systems like those to average consumers it would be a disaster. Other grad students reported vertigo and one even vomited after an extended session.
The saving grace of these systems might be that they aren't fully immersive so you would avoid the vertigo we felt standing inside the CAVE. The headaches came from the shutter systems we used. I'm glad 3D in theaters today uses some sort of polarized light these are much more pleasant to look at.
I think as long as 3D remains a "treat" instead of a default experience we'll be okay. The fact remains that no matter what the system used to produce 3D illusions on 2D surfaces we are ultimately causing a pair of binocular eyes to see objects that are not there. Seeing things that aren't there just sounds bad for you.
Well, I *never* take anything on slashdot seriously myself.
This same site is reporting the TSA has integrated full body scanners with Facebook.
Now, if Slashdot wishes to be taken as seriously as Wonder-Tonic or The ONION ...
I wouldn't ascribe that level of intelligence (or malice) to a professor from Iowa.
I put forward the same offer (and I'm not anonymous) with the caveat that I get a major share of the corporation built around the idea I select.
Just remember who will have the power in our working relationship. Me. You can't make your idea real. I can.
By way of analogy...
I already have the sword. Your idea might be for a gun. Last I checked, a real sword beats and imaginary gun.
If someone can truly send me a great idea that 'just needs a programmer', I will commit to writing the code. Out of the hundreds of 'ideas' that I get pitched 99% of them are already done (and often better than their plans), the 'idea owners' haven't even taken the time to review the market. Additionally, rarely does an 'idea' just need a programmer, it typically needs lots of capital to get over the hump of turning and idea into reality.
If your idea can pass a few simple questions
- How large is the potential market?
- Has this idea been done before, what makes it unique? It is patented, patentable?
- What have you invested in it?
My offer stands.
Yes, a lot of self-described "idea guys" have lousy ideas and aren't interested in details like programming. Is perhaps the thesis here that idea guys can be taught to program, but mere programmers can't be taught to have ideas? Because that's a bit insulting.
Very insightful. Somehow, I had missed the implicit insult. However, I think the insult was accidental. The author is trying to convince these oh-so-bright "idea guys" that they are oh-so-bright and can make their ideas come true themselves. The desired effect is these oh-so-bright "idea guys" will discover just how outlandish it is to think that three inexperienced graduate students could recreate all the functionality of Windows 7 using Javascript and HTML5.
I'm open to suggestions. Personally, I've been trying to figure out how to create my own company that would attract and retain the best technology talent... I just haven't figured out how we're going to put bread on the table yet.
Motorola Droid has had every update so far.
Go and slay Grendel! You can do it! Imma stay here behind this fortress of GPL. KTHXBAI.
Thank you. I did not remember where I read that.
Sliding into corruption? What rot. Most of us would run head long into it.
I either want less corruption or more opportunity to participate in it.
Buy a 4:3 display for a development machine?
I keep around some 4:3 monitors for development. When using two screens I typically stack them, I don't go side-to-side.
Don't use new technologies. Ignore HTML5.
In the universe the tape is time.
I had read the terse "no" to mean the Universe wasn't Turing Complete and I didn't read the original question very closely.
I can accept the idea the Universe isn't a Turing machine. But, it has to be at least as complex if not more so. This means that Kurt Gödel's ideas would apply to mathematical theorem about the Universe... leading to the conclusion you can't understand everything with one theory.
For example... try proving 1 + 1 = 2 without resorting to Set theory.
It doesn't apply for an even more basic reason. We don't require a theory of everything to be complete, only consistent. Moreover, most physicists would be happy with "just" a theory that hasn't been proved to be inconsistent.
If the theory is consistent it will be incomplete requiring another theory to cover the incompleteness. If the theory is complete it will be self contradictory.
If the universe is not Turing complete, could you please explain how the universe can run my Laptop on it's substrate?
My computer is Turing complete. My computer exists in this universe. No system that is not Turing complete can simulate one that is.
Me thinks the Universe is somehow Turing complete and thus governed by the fundamental rules of all computers.
whipper snapper!
Based on my back of the napkin calculations it would take a space craft like Voyager approximately 23,000 years to get to the planet. Someone want to correct me? Please? I certainly hope I did my math wrong. Sounds like we are stuck here.