haskell was fun in college. We also learned OZ which made my brain explode;)
Along these same lines it's really nice to use blocks in ruby for things like database result sets and file io. It will automatically clean up the resources for you.
It takes less than 1 minute to explain to someone that writing " a new string" creates a new object each time it's called. No need to learn C for that. Keep in mind that i"m not saying that people shouldn't learn C, just that it's not high on my list of what's essential for a programmer. I'd put things like learning how to write automated test suites and how to automate deployment way above learning C.
In short, the future legions of greasemonkey coders will be using Ruby on Rails
This is an extremely uninformed opinion. To code in ruby on rails requires a very solid understanding of OO concepts. We are now a rails shop and you'd be very surprised to know that I've seen many programmers struggle with rails because they don't get all the OO stuff. Rails is an extremely powerfull tool that lets real programmers create apps very fast, but "greasemonkey coders" have a very hard time with rails after they get past the simple tutorials. I've seen it many times.
You don't need to learn C to know that "blah blah" creates a new object on each iteration. You can learn ruby or python and learn this at the same time. In fact learning ruby should make it very clear that this is the case. I think the person who wrote that could simply wasn't a good programmer and wouldn't have been any better if they started with C.
I said it in another post and I'll say it again. The most important ability for a programmer to have is the ability to write clean concise code that is easy to understand, debug, change, and maintain. Learning C or assembly first does not help in this regard.
I don't believe I was a good programmer until I learned NOT to think like a computer. High level languages let you accomplish a great deal with very clear and concise code, but it is hard to write clean code if you look at a problem and try to solve it by thinking "what does the computer need to do". Making functions that take an input and generate a specified output is easy. Making them faster isn't too hard either. Making code that is easy to understand, debug, change, and maintain is the hard part. I don't believe learning assembly and thinking like a computer helps much in this area. This doesn't mean that learning assembly isn't a good thing, it means that it's not a high priority in my mind.
when I say programmer I mean someone who designs and writes applications.
I don't know if you remember, I do because I was in the military, that political pressure had to be put on afn (armed forces network) before they would put the al franken show on their radio station. They had a few righties such as Rush, but refused to put a lib on, then said they would, they said they wouldn't, and finally said they would again. They only said that they would when it started to come up in congress.
Having been stationed outside of the US for over 3 years I know what type of programming was on afn and it was completely one sided until very recectly.
p.s. - afn is the radio/tv station that is broadcast to the military especially those outside of the country.
seems insignificant to me. If the penalty for having a gun while a felon is not strong enough then make it stronger. Piling on technicalities is the wrong approach imho.
I have absolutely no idea what your point is. You very clearly said that "they're not legally allowed to have guns". They can't by a gun, and having a gun is illegal for them, so what is wrong here?
I agree with you in general, but the passage I quoted is extremely concise and straightforward. Allegory usually is not. When I'm raising my kids I wouldn't say, "if you talk back I'll cut out your tongue", as an allegory about talking back. My kid won't take it as an allegory, and it sounds in no way like an allegory. It makes no sense to say something the way this was said if the writer wanted to be allegorical. They are so many ways to convey the meaning you gave without such a literal sounding statement. I can't believe that a person on a direct line to god would make such a poor choose of words if an allegory was the intention
p.s. - I think it's reasonable to expect text inspired by god to have wording that makes it's intent clear. This text is very clear and precise, and I'm still waiting for a good explanation of the lack of eyeless christians.
It's sounds exactly like a literal command to me. Why word it this way if it weren't? This is my biggest problem with christians and the bible. They selectively choose what is literal and what isn't. (note: not all christians, just most)
There are some pretty disturbing things in the new testament as well. This is a little off the topic from the thread but here's one example.
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
Matthew 5:29
I have yet to figure out why I don't see a bunch of one-eyed christians.
consensus is not proof, so science must disregard it
First, there is a false premise in this assertion. A consensus of scientists based on scientific studies is very different from a consensus of "believers" that agree that the world is going to end on 11/11/11 because it's all ones. Conflating all forms of consensus is enough of a reason to disregard everything else you say.
Second, most things in life and science are not, nor ever will be, proven. The theory of gravity has not been proven, but there is a consensus of scientists that believe it based on repeated studies that match their views.
I may have fallen asleep because of the lack of O2 all the CO and CO2 in the air, but has the global warming effect been irrefutably proven? I still find many articles that speak for and against the global warming claim.
Is it "irrefutably proven" that smoking causes cancer? Is it "irrefutably proven" that eating red meat causes heart disease? Is it "irrefutably proven" that exercise is good for you? The answer to all of these is no. Most things in life aren't "irrefutably proven". Life is a bit more complicated than math and in most areas of life we have to make decisions without having "irrefutable proof".
yes and no. I use python and ruby at work and I prefer ruby as a language. Python does have better support and more mature libraries and it's a very nice language. We have a mix of linux and windows and python has much better windows support which is why we still use it as much as we do. The docs issue is weird. Ruby doesn't have as many docs, but I feel the docs they do have are often better (this is probably just personal preference). The python docs have left me wanting many many times. They are there for sure, but they can be really lacking.
Also, python does not have real threading support. It has the GIL which will prevent your threaded python app from using more than one processor, but it's still better than ruby's thread support. I don't think this is much of an issue for two reasons.
First, a lot of threaded apps are threaded because they are waiting on io of some sort usually network io. Ruby and python both work perfectly well for this type of threading need.
Second, I've only ever done one project that needed to be multithreaded so it's a non factor for me and I think most people are in the same boat.
The net is almost completely (if not completely) privately owned in the US
Not really. Any given piece of the net IS privately owned, but the NET as a whole is not. There is no single private company that controls the net and decides how it will work. There is a single private company that decides how windows will be or how google search works. This is the distinction he is making.
I understand it's appeal. It just doesn't work for me and the way I buy and use music. I see how it's better for others. Here is a bigger question (my boss and I have discussed this issue a lot). The record industry is already giving apple a hard time about their prices, how would they react to these services if they were actually popular?
Unless, like my wife, you want to burn the music to a cd to listen to in the car, in the shower, giver to your mom, etc, etc. How much would that cost with these rental service;)
iTunes is what we use and we have no complaints. We buy the songs and we can do what we want with them.
Others have pointed out that your sales numbers are wrong. Another major flaw in your statement is that you overlook the fact the apple makes a nice profit on each ipod whereas MS is losing money on each xbox.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point, but it's not an argument for learning C which is how I took the comment I replied to.
haskell was fun in college. We also learned OZ which made my brain explode ;)
Along these same lines it's really nice to use blocks in ruby for things like database result sets and file io. It will automatically clean up the resources for you.
It takes less than 1 minute to explain to someone that writing " a new string" creates a new object each time it's called. No need to learn C for that. Keep in mind that i"m not saying that people shouldn't learn C, just that it's not high on my list of what's essential for a programmer. I'd put things like learning how to write automated test suites and how to automate deployment way above learning C.
This is an extremely uninformed opinion. To code in ruby on rails requires a very solid understanding of OO concepts. We are now a rails shop and you'd be very surprised to know that I've seen many programmers struggle with rails because they don't get all the OO stuff. Rails is an extremely powerfull tool that lets real programmers create apps very fast, but "greasemonkey coders" have a very hard time with rails after they get past the simple tutorials. I've seen it many times.
You don't need to learn C to know that "blah blah" creates a new object on each iteration. You can learn ruby or python and learn this at the same time. In fact learning ruby should make it very clear that this is the case. I think the person who wrote that could simply wasn't a good programmer and wouldn't have been any better if they started with C.
I said it in another post and I'll say it again. The most important ability for a programmer to have is the ability to write clean concise code that is easy to understand, debug, change, and maintain. Learning C or assembly first does not help in this regard.
I don't believe I was a good programmer until I learned NOT to think like a computer. High level languages let you accomplish a great deal with very clear and concise code, but it is hard to write clean code if you look at a problem and try to solve it by thinking "what does the computer need to do". Making functions that take an input and generate a specified output is easy. Making them faster isn't too hard either. Making code that is easy to understand, debug, change, and maintain is the hard part. I don't believe learning assembly and thinking like a computer helps much in this area. This doesn't mean that learning assembly isn't a good thing, it means that it's not a high priority in my mind.
when I say programmer I mean someone who designs and writes applications.
I don't know if you remember, I do because I was in the military, that political pressure had to be put on afn (armed forces network) before they would put the al franken show on their radio station. They had a few righties such as Rush, but refused to put a lib on, then said they would, they said they wouldn't, and finally said they would again. They only said that they would when it started to come up in congress.
Having been stationed outside of the US for over 3 years I know what type of programming was on afn and it was completely one sided until very recectly.
p.s. - afn is the radio/tv station that is broadcast to the military especially those outside of the country.
Two things
First, you didn't address his point that the parent company of CNN donated to republicans.
second, you miss the main point, which is that cnn and mtv is not evidence that the military isn't censoring.
seems insignificant to me. If the penalty for having a gun while a felon is not strong enough then make it stronger. Piling on technicalities is the wrong approach imho.
I have absolutely no idea what your point is. You very clearly said that "they're not legally allowed to have guns". They can't by a gun, and having a gun is illegal for them, so what is wrong here?
I agree with you in general, but the passage I quoted is extremely concise and straightforward. Allegory usually is not. When I'm raising my kids I wouldn't say, "if you talk back I'll cut out your tongue", as an allegory about talking back. My kid won't take it as an allegory, and it sounds in no way like an allegory. It makes no sense to say something the way this was said if the writer wanted to be allegorical. They are so many ways to convey the meaning you gave without such a literal sounding statement. I can't believe that a person on a direct line to god would make such a poor choose of words if an allegory was the intention
p.s. - I think it's reasonable to expect text inspired by god to have wording that makes it's intent clear. This text is very clear and precise, and I'm still waiting for a good explanation of the lack of eyeless christians.
It's sounds exactly like a literal command to me. Why word it this way if it weren't? This is my biggest problem with christians and the bible. They selectively choose what is literal and what isn't. (note: not all christians, just most)
I have yet to figure out why I don't see a bunch of one-eyed christians.
You clearly don't live in a big city like los angeles. Light pollution plus smog equals a very bad view of space.
First, there is a false premise in this assertion. A consensus of scientists based on scientific studies is very different from a consensus of "believers" that agree that the world is going to end on 11/11/11 because it's all ones. Conflating all forms of consensus is enough of a reason to disregard everything else you say.
Second, most things in life and science are not, nor ever will be, proven. The theory of gravity has not been proven, but there is a consensus of scientists that believe it based on repeated studies that match their views.
Is it "irrefutably proven" that smoking causes cancer? Is it "irrefutably proven" that eating red meat causes heart disease? Is it "irrefutably proven" that exercise is good for you? The answer to all of these is no. Most things in life aren't "irrefutably proven". Life is a bit more complicated than math and in most areas of life we have to make decisions without having "irrefutable proof".
yes and no. I use python and ruby at work and I prefer ruby as a language. Python does have better support and more mature libraries and it's a very nice language. We have a mix of linux and windows and python has much better windows support which is why we still use it as much as we do. The docs issue is weird. Ruby doesn't have as many docs, but I feel the docs they do have are often better (this is probably just personal preference). The python docs have left me wanting many many times. They are there for sure, but they can be really lacking.
Also, python does not have real threading support. It has the GIL which will prevent your threaded python app from using more than one processor, but it's still better than ruby's thread support. I don't think this is much of an issue for two reasons.
First, a lot of threaded apps are threaded because they are waiting on io of some sort usually network io. Ruby and python both work perfectly well for this type of threading need.
Second, I've only ever done one project that needed to be multithreaded so it's a non factor for me and I think most people are in the same boat.
Not really. Any given piece of the net IS privately owned, but the NET as a whole is not. There is no single private company that controls the net and decides how it will work. There is a single private company that decides how windows will be or how google search works. This is the distinction he is making.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I think, by design, your going to need windows for your requirements.
And some people think their lj blogs that are black with red text look better and more unique. Most of humanity just think their ugly.
I understand it's appeal. It just doesn't work for me and the way I buy and use music. I see how it's better for others. Here is a bigger question (my boss and I have discussed this issue a lot). The record industry is already giving apple a hard time about their prices, how would they react to these services if they were actually popular?
Plus the subcription, so for someone like myself it's more expensive since all most every song we download gets burned.
Unless, like my wife, you want to burn the music to a cd to listen to in the car, in the shower, giver to your mom, etc, etc. How much would that cost with these rental service ;)
iTunes is what we use and we have no complaints. We buy the songs and we can do what we want with them.
Others have pointed out that your sales numbers are wrong. Another major flaw in your statement is that you overlook the fact the apple makes a nice profit on each ipod whereas MS is losing money on each xbox.