I agree that this is good advice to start out. But if you really want to be a retargetable developer who can pick up a new area quickly, you need to know at least five to a minimum level of competence.
Four of the languages that you need to know reasonably well are: an object-oriented language (C++, Java, and C# are all close enough to being object-oriented languages that one of them will do), a scripting language (Perl, Python, and Ruby are all fine choices; even modern JavaScript isn't too bad), a functional language (Haskell or Scheme are the obvious choices), and a logic/relational language (a dialect of Prolog which supports CLP is probably the theoretically "best" option, but for most developers SQL seems to do the job).
One of these four will probably be your "primary" language. There's one more language that you need to know reasonably well, and that's a "pure" form of your primary language. So, for example, if you spend most of your time in Java, learn Smalltalk to see what object oriented programming is supposed to be in its purest form.
You need to know enough about these other languages that it prevents you from thinking in a language. You need to think in the abstract, and then realise that abstract idea into a language. Knowing more than one programming language makes your code better, even if you never use them most of the time.
Those who make the big bucks are specialists who were lucky enough that their specialisation (whether chosen or not) is the right specialisation. But those who make the really big bucks are ultra-generalist entrepreneurs. You'd hardly call Gates, Zuckerberg or Jobs "specialists".
I think I know everything I need to know about Jersey Shore and The Only Way is Essex, namely, practically nothing. If that makes me cognitively dysfunctional, I'm proud of it.
I'm sad I have to respond to this as if it were serious, but I feel it's important to point out that being "incredibly misinformed" is not a sign of some kind of mental derangement.
Or were you arguing that misinformation causes cognitive dysfunction? If that's true, we're all doomed.
For comparison, you should ask the same random person on the street about William Rowan Hamilton, or Gregor Mendel, or Emmy Noether, or Joseph Louis Lagrange, or Grace Murray Hopper.
So? If you were an educated European of the 16th century, you probably would have been too. Conversely, if Calvin had lived today, he'd almost certainly have agreed with evolution and a 4.5B year old Earth just like the overwhelming majority of today's Christians.
By the way. Book of genesis is a really, really big pile of crap. It is actually more then that. It is a big pile of useless crap from start to end. There is nothing else to it.
I couldn't disagree more. The Book of Genesis is a very important historical artefact. It belongs in a museum, not in the garbage. Right alongside all of the other major mythological works of humanity.
Yeah, but they all suffer from a post-Enlightenment bias in favour of science and facts and stuff like that. To get to the real root of the matter, we should ask a 16th century Christian theologian.
For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception; and therefore what Gregory declares falsely and in vain respecting statues and pictures is truly applicable to the history of the creation, namely, that it is the book of the unlearned. -- John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis
Hmm. Looks like Calvin was a postmodernist liberal or something. Clearly we need someone with an earlier, more authentically Christian opinion. The 5th century seems early enough; no pesky modern science then.
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.
With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about [the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation. -- St Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis
Nope, clearly a wishy-washy accommodationist who has been blinded by modernist thinking. Clearly we need to back a couple of hundred more years. Surely third century theologians took Genesis literally.
For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. -- St Origen of Alexandria, quoted in De Principiis IV
It looks like every single major Christian theologian before the 20th century, with the possible exception of Basil the Great (and even then it's only a possible exception), who saw fit to write on the topic, thought that Genesis 1 was at least partly allegorical. In this "trial", pretty much all of Christian history is going to have to file an amicus brief on behalf of science.
True, but irrelevant. It's only in recent centuries that "protecting kids" was a realistic goal. For hundreds of thousands of years, the death of some of your children was tragic, but inevitable. That's why you had a lot of kids. (That, and nowhere-near-as-reliable contraception.)
When manufacturers try that in product liability cases, the juries don't buy it and hit them with big damage awards. "I knew some toddlers were dying but I'm a libertarian and it serves them right for having irresponsible parents" is not a successful trial strategy.
It seems to work in cases about firearms, so you can't blame them for trying.
No sane person advocates "ban everything unsafe", and no sane person advocates "no regulation whatsoever". Between those straw man positions lies a vast continuum of possibilities. I don't know what thread you're reading, but this one is about where to draw the line.
Slashdot Mirror
You think modern bloatware is inefficient and slow? Just wait until every machine is a NUMA machine!
I agree that this is good advice to start out. But if you really want to be a retargetable developer who can pick up a new area quickly, you need to know at least five to a minimum level of competence.
Four of the languages that you need to know reasonably well are: an object-oriented language (C++, Java, and C# are all close enough to being object-oriented languages that one of them will do), a scripting language (Perl, Python, and Ruby are all fine choices; even modern JavaScript isn't too bad), a functional language (Haskell or Scheme are the obvious choices), and a logic/relational language (a dialect of Prolog which supports CLP is probably the theoretically "best" option, but for most developers SQL seems to do the job).
One of these four will probably be your "primary" language. There's one more language that you need to know reasonably well, and that's a "pure" form of your primary language. So, for example, if you spend most of your time in Java, learn Smalltalk to see what object oriented programming is supposed to be in its purest form.
You need to know enough about these other languages that it prevents you from thinking in a language. You need to think in the abstract, and then realise that abstract idea into a language. Knowing more than one programming language makes your code better, even if you never use them most of the time.
Those who make the big bucks are specialists who were lucky enough that their specialisation (whether chosen or not) is the right specialisation. But those who make the really big bucks are ultra-generalist entrepreneurs. You'd hardly call Gates, Zuckerberg or Jobs "specialists".
I think I know everything I need to know about Jersey Shore and The Only Way is Essex, namely, practically nothing. If that makes me cognitively dysfunctional, I'm proud of it.
Yeah, everyone knows that Google Labs doesn't exist.
They're called "little penguins", you insensitive clod.
No, it's not a contradiction. It's not even a well-formed statement.
"Rational" is a property of a claim, belief or process. It is not a property of a person.
Of course there's justification for ignorance: ignorance is the normal state of human beings.
I'm ignorant on a great many topics, and so are you.
I'm sad I have to respond to this as if it were serious, but I feel it's important to point out that being "incredibly misinformed" is not a sign of some kind of mental derangement.
Or were you arguing that misinformation causes cognitive dysfunction? If that's true, we're all doomed.
Hey, it could be worse. She might prefer Emacs to Vim or something seriously horrible like that.
Congratulations, you've just committed the Fundamental Attribution Error. You too can now write for atheist blogs!
Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam.
On any other day, they can't pretend that you're in on the joke.
Ah, but you didn't predict "it's already 2 April here in Australia!"
For comparison, you should ask the same random person on the street about William Rowan Hamilton, or Gregor Mendel, or Emmy Noether, or Joseph Louis Lagrange, or Grace Murray Hopper.
Believed in a 6-day creation...
Was a Delugionist
So? If you were an educated European of the 16th century, you probably would have been too. Conversely, if Calvin had lived today, he'd almost certainly have agreed with evolution and a 4.5B year old Earth just like the overwhelming majority of today's Christians.
For the record, "museum" is a metaphor. Some people didn't seem to get that.
I couldn't disagree more. The Book of Genesis is a very important historical artefact. It belongs in a museum, not in the garbage. Right alongside all of the other major mythological works of humanity.
Yeah, but they all suffer from a post-Enlightenment bias in favour of science and facts and stuff like that. To get to the real root of the matter, we should ask a 16th century Christian theologian.
Hmm. Looks like Calvin was a postmodernist liberal or something. Clearly we need someone with an earlier, more authentically Christian opinion. The 5th century seems early enough; no pesky modern science then.
Nope, clearly a wishy-washy accommodationist who has been blinded by modernist thinking. Clearly we need to back a couple of hundred more years. Surely third century theologians took Genesis literally.
It looks like every single major Christian theologian before the 20th century, with the possible exception of Basil the Great (and even then it's only a possible exception), who saw fit to write on the topic, thought that Genesis 1 was at least partly allegorical. In this "trial", pretty much all of Christian history is going to have to file an amicus brief on behalf of science.
...do not give this guy more publicity.
True, but irrelevant. It's only in recent centuries that "protecting kids" was a realistic goal. For hundreds of thousands of years, the death of some of your children was tragic, but inevitable. That's why you had a lot of kids. (That, and nowhere-near-as-reliable contraception.)
Which is to say, barely regulated at all?
Handheld high powered lasers are neither weapons nor toys, they are tools. They should be regulated the same way chainsaws are.
It seems to work in cases about firearms, so you can't blame them for trying.
If this one is about drawing the line at magnets, then your use of the phrase "all things" was unconstructive hyperbole.
No sane person advocates "ban everything unsafe", and no sane person advocates "no regulation whatsoever". Between those straw man positions lies a vast continuum of possibilities. I don't know what thread you're reading, but this one is about where to draw the line.