The other side, that no one has mentioned, is that perl conforms to the OO paradigm more closely than any other language
Except for nearly all of the other ones? Especially other scripting languages?
Pick a bunch of languages at random. Stick them on a dartboard. Throw something gigantic at the dartboard. Chances are every language you hit conforms to the OO paradigm more closely than perl.
I can write object-oriented assembly. That doesn't make it a particularly OOPy language. Perl objects are hacked on, somewhat painfully at that.
Anybody who uses Kindles to read DRM'd books has no appreciation for knowledge or art
So... is it DRM or the Kindle itself that removes the ability to appreciate knowledge or art? FWIW, I don't own a kindle, but I think buying one and using it would not change my level of appreciation.
and any author who relies on this customer base is making a grave mistake.
All authors should be elitists who only let the right kind of people read their books?
I think there might be an Eclipse option. We had a new guy once who had some IDE auto-committing. He had a ridiculous number of completely uninformative commits early on. Very quickly the top item on his task list became "Figure out how to disable auto-commit"
So he starts off with stuff about how he's feeling old and the surest sign of it is bitching about "kids these days".
You need to have read more of Joel's writing. That's just his irreverent style.
I didn't have a problem with that part. I felt that his age DOES show, but that's not why.
His premise is that, in order to be a good programmer, you need the right kind of metal aptitude which is a you-either-have-it-or-you-don't thing and not a skill that can be learned. While there may be other ways to test for that aptitude, his claim is that one sure-fire way to test for it is the ability to understand pointers.
I get his premise. I just think he's wrong.
I worked with a guy who understood pointers. He was a brilliant guy. He was also a terrible programmer. His code was universally unintelligble -- and before anyone claims the fault was on my end, it's not. I was the guy in the office who understood pointers better than he did. He would write shell scripts and awk, and they were just as unintelligble. They weren't a case of being so clever that lesser minds struggled with them. They were just complicated in needless ways. Other guys on staff could modify his code and make it both more efficient and more readable in one shot.
When interviewing potential hires, I'm more concerned with how they break down a problem than anything else. I've hired guys to do C, Java, perl, and ruby among others. I'm not perfect, but better than 90% of the time I give a guy the green light he turns out to be solid.
Started reading, because I'm usually happy to read a well written rant about why java sucks. I'm not exactly a fan myself.
So he starts off with stuff about how he's feeling old and the surest sign of it is bitching about "kids these days". He's wrong. That's not the surest sign. This was:
Instead what I'd like to claim is that Java is not, generally, a hard enough programming language that it can be used to discriminate between great programmers and mediocre programmers.
Got to that point and decided that it's an obviously unsupportable premise. Read a little bit more, and my takeaway is that Joel doesn't know how to spot a good programmer unless they're working in C.
Did a little more digging, I was halfway right. The meat of it was that the recount methodology that Gore requested was actually one of the least beneficial scenarios for his side.
Yes, every single one. Don't forget that Gore tried to goose the results by having only Dem heavy counties recounted rather than the entire state.
One last thing that just about no one knows about. All of the major news outlets proclaimed Florida to Gore before voting was finished in Florida. Florida resides in two time zones and the northwest "handle" of Florida is heavily Republican. Many voters left lines while voting was open once Florida was called for Gore. IF that hadn't have happened, the recount wouldn't have been close at all.
As I recall, the Bush camp wanted one recount method, and the Gore camp wanted a different one, and under the rules they each proposed, the other side would have won.
If there's a door there, it should open. If it won't open, there shouldn't be a door there. How hard is this? Putting a door there that's never going to open just frustrates the player and destroys the suspension of disbelief. It reminds them that they're not really in this world they can see, they're in some arbitrarily limited construct devised by a "product manager" at some company to try to screw a few bob out of them.
What kind of world do you live in that you're able to open every single door you see? You actually believe that is realistic? Especially for games like the original Half Life, set in this huge commercial / industrial type top secret research setting. I would expect that EVERY door would be locked by default!
The complaint is more that IRL, there is *some way* of opening every door out there. Most of the time it's out of simple respect of what a locked door indicates that you don't even try. The rest of the time it's usually that the effort isn't worth it. But it's totally possible to open every single door in, say, a hotel. In many games, doors are just decorative, despite that there's an implication of something behind it.
Customers were not charged retroactively for the discounted amounts, but their bills were "corrected on a moving-forward basis."
This part doesn't make sense to me, obviously these customers were just as active in defrauding Comcast, they should be required to pay the money they owe at a minimum, criminal charges seems more appropriate. Why play favorites? They're equally guilty as the perpetrators of the scam. Without them, the scam wouldn't have worked.
Probably because some of them were legitimately handled by the employee in question, and determining actual liability on each and every one of them would be prohibitively expensive. Would be my guess.
or you can turn it the other way around, ask the person why he wants to get paid 33$ or 37$ an hour in the first place as I think this is a very high amount to get paid. I could assume that over 50% of a paycheck goes to the house, appartment or mortgage then the problem ain't the paycheck alone but rather what he pays with it. Don't pay for waht you can't afford is what I can tell from lots of people. They got 3 floor house when they can alone afford a garden house anyways.
It's NYC. $37/hour doesn't go that far, especially if you have a family.
Then it might be time to move. Back in the nineties I moved out of the San Francisco bay area, where I had lived most of my life, because I took a hard look at the cost of living and the chances of ever owning a home, and decided that my salary as an engineer would never get me out of the apartment, much less raise a family. Finding a high tech job at the same salary in an area with lower cost of living was like getting a huge raise. And the quality of life is higher, the level of crime is much lower, and there's significantly less traffic. Of course, the temperatures and weather vary dramatically from the bay area, but the other things made it worth the trade, and we can always visit.
I can certainly see an argument for moving, but the poster I was replying to suggested that the only reason people might need more than that kind of wage (roughly $80k / year) would be because they're wasting it on luxuries like a massive house or some such. Which is not the case.
or you can turn it the other way around, ask the person why he wants to get paid 33$ or 37$ an hour in the first place as I think this is a very high amount to get paid. I could assume that over 50% of a paycheck goes to the house, appartment or mortgage then the problem ain't the paycheck alone but rather what he pays with it. Don't pay for waht you can't afford is what I can tell from lots of people. They got 3 floor house when they can alone afford a garden house anyways.
It's NYC. $37/hour doesn't go that far, especially if you have a family.
I think you are confusing wisdom for intelligence. Politicians tend to be very wise when it comes to understanding what makes people tick and how to get people to like them enough to vote for them.
Then they get on Senate committees and blabber on about topics they have absolutely no business talking about because they are ignorant on the subject.
The intelligent person knows when it's raining. The wise person knows to get in out of the rain.
He's not confusing them. He's saying there are different types of intelligence. He's also agreeing with the post he replied to, basically saying that retraining politicians to code wouldn't work, but not because they're dumb. Rather because that's not how their brains are wired.
If goal X can be achieved by action Y, the ability to recognize this and succesfully carry out action Y would be considered a form of intelligence.
If goal X is get funding for something, and action Y is blather on about crap they know nothing about.... then blathering is a smart move. The morality of such an action is certainly debatable, but that's indepedent of intelligence.
I always find it interesting when people who believe in evolution get upset when instances of it take place in real life.
Why?
I believe that if I were stabbed, it could be fatal. At a minimum it would probably hurt. I would get upset if an instance of this were to take place in real life.
Would probably have helped to specify in the summary. My first four thoughts on seeing that were:
1. Someone meant to use the Euro symbol. But I'm pretty sure 1 Euro > 1 USD currently. So that's not it. 2. Inflation adjusted dollars. 3. Canadian dollars?. 4. Look through the comments and see who else wondered the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
The other side, that no one has mentioned, is that perl conforms to the OO paradigm more closely than any other language
Except for nearly all of the other ones? Especially other scripting languages?
Pick a bunch of languages at random. Stick them on a dartboard. Throw something gigantic at the dartboard. Chances are every language you hit conforms to the OO paradigm more closely than perl.
I can write object-oriented assembly. That doesn't make it a particularly OOPy language. Perl objects are hacked on, somewhat painfully at that.
Anybody who uses Kindles to read DRM'd books has no appreciation for knowledge or art
So... is it DRM or the Kindle itself that removes the ability to appreciate knowledge or art? FWIW, I don't own a kindle, but I think buying one and using it would not change my level of appreciation.
and any author who relies on this customer base is making a grave mistake.
All authors should be elitists who only let the right kind of people read their books?
I think there might be an Eclipse option. We had a new guy once who had some IDE auto-committing. He had a ridiculous number of completely uninformative commits early on. Very quickly the top item on his task list became "Figure out how to disable auto-commit"
Seconded. I lost about 15 pounds last time I was unemployed.
You need to have read more of Joel's writing. That's just his irreverent style.
I didn't have a problem with that part. I felt that his age DOES show, but that's not why.
His premise is that, in order to be a good programmer, you need the right kind of metal aptitude which is a you-either-have-it-or-you-don't thing and not a skill that can be learned. While there may be other ways to test for that aptitude, his claim is that one sure-fire way to test for it is the ability to understand pointers.
I get his premise. I just think he's wrong.
I worked with a guy who understood pointers. He was a brilliant guy. He was also a terrible programmer. His code was universally unintelligble -- and before anyone claims the fault was on my end, it's not. I was the guy in the office who understood pointers better than he did. He would write shell scripts and awk, and they were just as unintelligble. They weren't a case of being so clever that lesser minds struggled with them. They were just complicated in needless ways. Other guys on staff could modify his code and make it both more efficient and more readable in one shot.
When interviewing potential hires, I'm more concerned with how they break down a problem than anything else. I've hired guys to do C, Java, perl, and ruby among others. I'm not perfect, but better than 90% of the time I give a guy the green light he turns out to be solid.
Started reading, because I'm usually happy to read a well written rant about why java sucks. I'm not exactly a fan myself.
So he starts off with stuff about how he's feeling old and the surest sign of it is bitching about "kids these days". He's wrong. That's not the surest sign. This was:
Instead what I'd like to claim is that Java is not, generally, a hard enough programming language that it can be used to discriminate between great programmers and mediocre programmers.
Got to that point and decided that it's an obviously unsupportable premise. Read a little bit more, and my takeaway is that Joel doesn't know how to spot a good programmer unless they're working in C.
Auncle?
Agreed. My conclusion from the data is that github is getting more mainstream.
I looked at this: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/... and a wikipedia page about it.
Did a little more digging, I was halfway right. The meat of it was that the recount methodology that Gore requested was actually one of the least beneficial scenarios for his side.
Gore lost on every recount. Get over it.
Yes, every single one. Don't forget that Gore tried to goose the results by having only Dem heavy counties recounted rather than the entire state.
One last thing that just about no one knows about. All of the major news outlets proclaimed Florida to Gore before voting was finished in Florida. Florida resides in two time zones and the northwest "handle" of Florida is heavily Republican. Many voters left lines while voting was open once Florida was called for Gore. IF that hadn't have happened, the recount wouldn't have been close at all.
As I recall, the Bush camp wanted one recount method, and the Gore camp wanted a different one, and under the rules they each proposed, the other side would have won.
If there's a door there, it should open. If it won't open, there shouldn't be a door there. How hard is this? Putting a door there that's never going to open just frustrates the player and destroys the suspension of disbelief. It reminds them that they're not really in this world they can see, they're in some arbitrarily limited construct devised by a "product manager" at some company to try to screw a few bob out of them.
What kind of world do you live in that you're able to open every single door you see? You actually believe that is realistic? Especially for games like the original Half Life, set in this huge commercial / industrial type top secret research setting. I would expect that EVERY door would be locked by default!
The complaint is more that IRL, there is *some way* of opening every door out there. Most of the time it's out of simple respect of what a locked door indicates that you don't even try. The rest of the time it's usually that the effort isn't worth it. But it's totally possible to open every single door in, say, a hotel. In many games, doors are just decorative, despite that there's an implication of something behind it.
Customers were not charged retroactively for the discounted amounts, but their bills were "corrected on a moving-forward basis."
This part doesn't make sense to me, obviously these customers were just as active in defrauding Comcast, they should be required to pay the money they owe at a minimum, criminal charges seems more appropriate. Why play favorites? They're equally guilty as the perpetrators of the scam. Without them, the scam wouldn't have worked.
Probably because some of them were legitimately handled by the employee in question, and determining actual liability on each and every one of them would be prohibitively expensive. Would be my guess.
Why do people have such a hard time spelling "definitely"? Is it that hard?
I know what you mean. It drives me nuts. It's defiantly not that hard to spell.
Now that is hands down the best reason I've heard for saying golf is not a sport.
Yeah I had you attached to the wrong parent post. Sorry about that.
His post doesn't have a W in between George and Bush.
or you can turn it the other way around, ask the person why he wants to get paid 33$ or 37$ an hour in the first place as I think this is a very high amount to get paid. I could assume that over 50% of a paycheck goes to the house, appartment or mortgage then the problem ain't the paycheck alone but rather what he pays with it. Don't pay for waht you can't afford is what I can tell from lots of people. They got 3 floor house when they can alone afford a garden house anyways.
It's NYC. $37/hour doesn't go that far, especially if you have a family.
Then it might be time to move. Back in the nineties I moved out of the San Francisco bay area, where I had lived most of my life, because I took a hard look at the cost of living and the chances of ever owning a home, and decided that my salary as an engineer would never get me out of the apartment, much less raise a family. Finding a high tech job at the same salary in an area with lower cost of living was like getting a huge raise. And the quality of life is higher, the level of crime is much lower, and there's significantly less traffic. Of course, the temperatures and weather vary dramatically from the bay area, but the other things made it worth the trade, and we can always visit.
I can certainly see an argument for moving, but the poster I was replying to suggested that the only reason people might need more than that kind of wage (roughly $80k / year) would be because they're wasting it on luxuries like a massive house or some such. Which is not the case.
or you can turn it the other way around, ask the person why he wants to get paid 33$ or 37$ an hour in the first place as I think this is a very high amount to get paid. I could assume that over 50% of a paycheck goes to the house, appartment or mortgage then the problem ain't the paycheck alone but rather what he pays with it. Don't pay for waht you can't afford is what I can tell from lots of people. They got 3 floor house when they can alone afford a garden house anyways.
It's NYC. $37/hour doesn't go that far, especially if you have a family.
Basically what I was thinking. After the clusterfuck that was Civ V, I'm just hoping they didn't use that as their starting point.
I think you are confusing wisdom for intelligence. Politicians tend to be very wise when it comes to understanding what makes people tick and how to get people to like them enough to vote for them.
Then they get on Senate committees and blabber on about topics they have absolutely no business talking about because they are ignorant on the subject.
The intelligent person knows when it's raining. The wise person knows to get in out of the rain.
He's not confusing them. He's saying there are different types of intelligence. He's also agreeing with the post he replied to, basically saying that retraining politicians to code wouldn't work, but not because they're dumb. Rather because that's not how their brains are wired.
If goal X can be achieved by action Y, the ability to recognize this and succesfully carry out action Y would be considered a form of intelligence.
If goal X is get funding for something, and action Y is blather on about crap they know nothing about.... then blathering is a smart move. The morality of such an action is certainly debatable, but that's indepedent of intelligence.
I always find it interesting when people who believe in evolution get upset when instances of it take place in real life.
Why?
I believe that if I were stabbed, it could be fatal. At a minimum it would probably hurt. I would get upset if an instance of this were to take place in real life.
Would this also be interesting?
I have a conch that does exactly what I need it to do - To hear the lamentations of their women.
When Arnold says it, the word is lamendations.
Explaining the joke here, but.... the idea is that we're shaving Ockham without using his razor.
Would probably have helped to specify in the summary. My first four thoughts on seeing that were:
1. Someone meant to use the Euro symbol. But I'm pretty sure 1 Euro > 1 USD currently. So that's not it.
2. Inflation adjusted dollars.
3. Canadian dollars?.
4. Look through the comments and see who else wondered the same thing.