I'm not a manager or coach of any description. Scrum (or something similar) works for us.
I've read about Scrum failing, and I've noticed that there's often things like multi-hour daily meetings or nobody with the authority to decide what's actually wanted. If you do Scrum badly like that, it will almost certainly fail. If you do it well, and you have competent developers, you're likely to succeed.
If the people behind me can't stop safely if I do a panic stop, they're following too close. There are reasons I might have to do one without anything being visible to the guy behind, such as going over a hill or around a low-visibility curve and seeing an obstruction. There's two places on my usual commute to work that could easily conceal a low obstacle like a box or a body around a curve. Another driver might suddenly block my lane, and I can't necessarily get over. In one incident where I was on a two-lane road and a driver pulled out from a side street right in front of me, if I couldn't have moved into the other lane I'd have braked as hard as possible. There's also the possibility of car malfunction where I'd want to stop as fast as possible and ditch the car. These don't happen often, but the sane thing to do is not necessarily the expected thing.
I consumed nothing, except in your imagination. When I leave with my unauthorized copy, everything's the same as it was when I arrived. Consuming something implies that something is now gone or missing or transformed, which in the case of copies is false.
Again, to the copyright holder, who doesn't know what I personally am doing, what's the difference?
Given portable source code, that doesn't rely on undefined behavior or effects of unspecified or implementation-dependent behavior, any good C++ compiler will produce code that is identical to any other in accesses to volatile objects and calls to system I/O routines (that being what the Standard requires). It won't be the same object code, because there's lots of different ways to accomplish the same thing.
Therefore, the output of good compilers, given the source code of a compiler, will be different binary programs that do the same thing.
It is not only false to say that programs that produce the same output must be the same, it's stupid to say that.
Which source was the one brought up by someone disagreeing with me. I like it when I can argue against someone based on their cites to some extent, but it doesn't teach me as much as well-reasoned opposition.
I agree that, if one can get high-paying employment, amassing a million or two in savings over one's working lifetime isn't that difficult. I disagree that that counts as being rich.
First, you know nothing of my medical history. I'm not talking generalities here, but specific things that could have killed or crippled me that were averted by good health care.
I'm old enough to access all my retirement savings. I'm not rich by any sort of modern standards.
Universal health care obviously is paid through taxes, but literally every country with universal health care pays a whole lot less than we do. I'd happily trade $9K in personal expenses for a $6K increase in taxes (the approximate per-capita numbers for US health care and the second most expensive in 2014).
I have no idea what you mean by that cite. It says that economic freedom and free-market capitalism are good things, and says nothing about health care except that it's better in countries with more economic freedom, which Europe leads in. That article doesn't address health care models at all.
Universal health care is very useful economically in that it frees people up to take risks. If I leave a job that's providing good medical insurance for my family to start my own business, I'm risking the health of my family. If I lived in Germany, say, I'd just be risking the family financial position, which is less daunting. If I start a business and it grows, at some point I'm going to have to start offering group health insurance with company assistance to bring in good people. If I started one in Germany, that's one expense I would skip. Since the number of successful businesses is related to the number of people who start businesses, I'd say that barriers to starting one's own business impede economic progress.
Yes, they're capitalist, and often refer to themselves as socialist, which has to be a different meaning of the word. You don't have to accept a specific definition as correct to know there's two definitions out there.
That's rare among languages. I believe PHP is something of a Perl descendant, and Perl uses sigils.
In any case, it wouldn't work for user-defined types, which are extremely common in C++ and not rare in C. There's a limited amount of punctuation characters. Also, # starts C and C++ preprocessor statements, % is an arithmetic operator in both, and * is the operator in both to indicate what a pointer points to. Neither C++ nor C has an actual string type, although they have ways to manipulate strings in their libraries.
It was a lot more complicated than that. Franco was strongly in favor of more-or-less Christian Germany against the godless Soviet Union, and sent about a division to the Eastern Front, which got some of the more radical Nationalists out of the way for a while and killed some of them. He was strongly in favor of the US and Britain against Japan.
He claimed to be on Hitler's side, and at least pretended to negotiate about entering the war. Hitler later said he'd rather be in the dentists' chair than negotiating with Franco. It's unclear to what extent he wanted to support Nazi Germany.
Secession was about slavery. The Confederacy was founded on the principle of slavery. To the extent that the war was over secession, it was influenced by slavery. Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation (at least party to prevent European powers from intervening on the part of the Confederacy), and it started to become partly about slavery.
In the US, we have freedom of the press. We don't have the freedom of someone else's press. Nobody's going to stop the Nazis from publishing their propaganda rag, but there's lots of people who aren't going to help.
"It used to be..." Actually, it wasn't. All companies in the publishing business have been selective about what they'll publish since the dawn of publishing. The phone company and the post office are in the business of communication, and Nazis can use those methods just like anybody else.
The difference between government and business censorship is that government censorship says "You can't publish that" while business censorship says "You can't publish that here". The Nazis are perfectly free to publish anywhere they can find a place to be published.
Actually, doctorvo makes perfect sense. In Common Lisp, any symbol knows its type at all times, but can contain any possible data type, unless a special declaration is made. It's strongly dynamically typed. Try treating a string like an integer, and it'll fail, because they're different types. If you treat a string as an integer in Forth, it will flag no error, because Forth is as weakly typed as they come.
Capitalization can be used to separate namespaces. In C++, for example, FOO would be a preprocessor variable (or, according to some people, a constant), Foo would be a class, and foo would be a variable. For this to work, the coding standard has to be strictly enforced. Randomly using capitalization as a way to distinguish variables is a Bad Idea.
Operators have been overloaded since the beginning of higher-level languages. "+" is almost always used to add both integers and floating-point numbers, even though those are different machine operations. (COBOL, of course, uses "ADD", but you can freely mix COMP, COMP-1, COMP-2, and (if available) COMP-3 types.)
In my experience, statically and dynamically typed languages have different strengths. I wouldn't say that I'm more productive in one or the other under all circumstances. Asking which is better is unproductive.
Or are you suggesting that the people that actually write in these loose languages "because it saves me typing 5 characters"
I think you're talking about the null set. A good dynamically typed language just works differently from a good statically typed language. They aren't the same thing, just with or without type declarations.
Slashdot Mirror
What can go right? Easy. Bell Canada can brag about stopping piracy, and by disposing of any stupid due process doesn't need to do much work.
I'm not a manager or coach of any description. Scrum (or something similar) works for us.
I've read about Scrum failing, and I've noticed that there's often things like multi-hour daily meetings or nobody with the authority to decide what's actually wanted. If you do Scrum badly like that, it will almost certainly fail. If you do it well, and you have competent developers, you're likely to succeed.
If the people behind me can't stop safely if I do a panic stop, they're following too close. There are reasons I might have to do one without anything being visible to the guy behind, such as going over a hill or around a low-visibility curve and seeing an obstruction. There's two places on my usual commute to work that could easily conceal a low obstacle like a box or a body around a curve. Another driver might suddenly block my lane, and I can't necessarily get over. In one incident where I was on a two-lane road and a driver pulled out from a side street right in front of me, if I couldn't have moved into the other lane I'd have braked as hard as possible. There's also the possibility of car malfunction where I'd want to stop as fast as possible and ditch the car. These don't happen often, but the sane thing to do is not necessarily the expected thing.
I consumed nothing, except in your imagination. When I leave with my unauthorized copy, everything's the same as it was when I arrived. Consuming something implies that something is now gone or missing or transformed, which in the case of copies is false.
Again, to the copyright holder, who doesn't know what I personally am doing, what's the difference?
Given portable source code, that doesn't rely on undefined behavior or effects of unspecified or implementation-dependent behavior, any good C++ compiler will produce code that is identical to any other in accesses to volatile objects and calls to system I/O routines (that being what the Standard requires). It won't be the same object code, because there's lots of different ways to accomplish the same thing.
Therefore, the output of good compilers, given the source code of a compiler, will be different binary programs that do the same thing.
It is not only false to say that programs that produce the same output must be the same, it's stupid to say that.
Which source was the one brought up by someone disagreeing with me. I like it when I can argue against someone based on their cites to some extent, but it doesn't teach me as much as well-reasoned opposition.
I agree that, if one can get high-paying employment, amassing a million or two in savings over one's working lifetime isn't that difficult. I disagree that that counts as being rich.
First, you know nothing of my medical history. I'm not talking generalities here, but specific things that could have killed or crippled me that were averted by good health care.
I'm old enough to access all my retirement savings. I'm not rich by any sort of modern standards.
Universal health care obviously is paid through taxes, but literally every country with universal health care pays a whole lot less than we do. I'd happily trade $9K in personal expenses for a $6K increase in taxes (the approximate per-capita numbers for US health care and the second most expensive in 2014).
I have no idea what you mean by that cite. It says that economic freedom and free-market capitalism are good things, and says nothing about health care except that it's better in countries with more economic freedom, which Europe leads in. That article doesn't address health care models at all.
Universal health care is very useful economically in that it frees people up to take risks. If I leave a job that's providing good medical insurance for my family to start my own business, I'm risking the health of my family. If I lived in Germany, say, I'd just be risking the family financial position, which is less daunting. If I start a business and it grows, at some point I'm going to have to start offering group health insurance with company assistance to bring in good people. If I started one in Germany, that's one expense I would skip. Since the number of successful businesses is related to the number of people who start businesses, I'd say that barriers to starting one's own business impede economic progress.
Yes, they're capitalist, and often refer to themselves as socialist, which has to be a different meaning of the word. You don't have to accept a specific definition as correct to know there's two definitions out there.
That's rare among languages. I believe PHP is something of a Perl descendant, and Perl uses sigils.
In any case, it wouldn't work for user-defined types, which are extremely common in C++ and not rare in C. There's a limited amount of punctuation characters. Also, # starts C and C++ preprocessor statements, % is an arithmetic operator in both, and * is the operator in both to indicate what a pointer points to. Neither C++ nor C has an actual string type, although they have ways to manipulate strings in their libraries.
Italy actually contributed a lot more to the Nationalist cause.
The US military has won every war it was in. It's not as good at propping up semi-failed regimes indefinitely.
Nazi lies. Nazis identify themselves as Nazis, and are violent themselves.
It was a lot more complicated than that. Franco was strongly in favor of more-or-less Christian Germany against the godless Soviet Union, and sent about a division to the Eastern Front, which got some of the more radical Nationalists out of the way for a while and killed some of them. He was strongly in favor of the US and Britain against Japan.
He claimed to be on Hitler's side, and at least pretended to negotiate about entering the war. Hitler later said he'd rather be in the dentists' chair than negotiating with Franco. It's unclear to what extent he wanted to support Nazi Germany.
Secession was about slavery. The Confederacy was founded on the principle of slavery. To the extent that the war was over secession, it was influenced by slavery. Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation (at least party to prevent European powers from intervening on the part of the Confederacy), and it started to become partly about slavery.
The war started with the Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter, a US government facility.
In the US, we have freedom of the press. We don't have the freedom of someone else's press. Nobody's going to stop the Nazis from publishing their propaganda rag, but there's lots of people who aren't going to help.
"It used to be..." Actually, it wasn't. All companies in the publishing business have been selective about what they'll publish since the dawn of publishing. The phone company and the post office are in the business of communication, and Nazis can use those methods just like anybody else.
The difference between government and business censorship is that government censorship says "You can't publish that" while business censorship says "You can't publish that here". The Nazis are perfectly free to publish anywhere they can find a place to be published.
Don't confuse C and C++ memory management. C++ is far superior, and provides bounds checking and pointer safety as desired.
Actually, doctorvo makes perfect sense. In Common Lisp, any symbol knows its type at all times, but can contain any possible data type, unless a special declaration is made. It's strongly dynamically typed. Try treating a string like an integer, and it'll fail, because they're different types. If you treat a string as an integer in Forth, it will flag no error, because Forth is as weakly typed as they come.
Capitalization can be used to separate namespaces. In C++, for example, FOO would be a preprocessor variable (or, according to some people, a constant), Foo would be a class, and foo would be a variable. For this to work, the coding standard has to be strictly enforced. Randomly using capitalization as a way to distinguish variables is a Bad Idea.
Operators have been overloaded since the beginning of higher-level languages. "+" is almost always used to add both integers and floating-point numbers, even though those are different machine operations. (COBOL, of course, uses "ADD", but you can freely mix COMP, COMP-1, COMP-2, and (if available) COMP-3 types.)
In my experience, statically and dynamically typed languages have different strengths. I wouldn't say that I'm more productive in one or the other under all circumstances. Asking which is better is unproductive.
You have just said that having code work is of secondary importance. I'm not convinced.
I think you're talking about the null set. A good dynamically typed language just works differently from a good statically typed language. They aren't the same thing, just with or without type declarations.