All the reviewers, which do the main work, are working without pay anyways. The publishers (like Springer) are just greedy without bounds and without providing significant value. It is high time this stops.
Unfortunately, the Bavarians have both. While technically there is no historic overlap between Bavaria and Prussia, the mind-set is quite present there.
Well, Bavaria is basically the insane asylum of Germany (to quote Otto), so nothing surprises me there. I only follow German politics casually these days, although I used to live there.
As that is not happening, it is also not a problem. There are just some Nazis (yes, AfD has now openly collaborated with Nazis) that what to panic the population to profit from it.
Well to be fair, these moron coders (well, the subset that can actually produce code that at least works somewhat) are ensuring a significant portion of my main job (IT security consulting), so you have a point.
What sort of program might a kid write that actually teaches any useful skills for a world were almost any useful piece of software is networked in some way? If we want coding education to be useful, it must not just be toy code that does nothing meaningful.
You have no idea what Mathematics actually is. Basic calculus (and I gather you have not done any n-space or non-standard Calculus or any related proof theory?) is like 0.1% of it and it mostly serves to support classical engineering. What is taught in school only scratches the surface. Same with programming.
All German federal activities in the Internet so far have been uninformed, counter-productive, very late and generally of negative utility. This one will be the same.
There is very little math in school. Just some elementary introductory algebra and maybe some elementary introductory geometry. I am not opposed to some elementary introductory coding being in there as well, in fact any reasonable math class will include that at some time. But it will not be a "most beneficial" subject for any of those subjected to it.
As soon as you need reliability, security and performance, coding becomes anything but trivial. It also becomes something most people cannot master. Hence this just shows that 50% of parents have swallowed the propaganda.
The one thing humanity does not need is more bad coders. There are already far to many of them.
Ada is a complex mess that has long ago started being a huge problem. Eiffel is really nice, but only if you write good contracts for the Design-by-Contract part. That is time consuming and often really hard and probably negates the positive aspects with most coders (the majority is bad at it) on the market today.
Also, contracts do not eliminate bugs. They just allow detection at run-time (as long as the contracts do not have the same bugs) if you actually get test-coverage. I found that DbC works very well for things like complex data structures that you then can simply fuzz over a weekend and basically end up bug-free. But the same you can do by having a slow, safe implementation in a language well-suited for prototyping (say, Python) and the actual optimized target-implementation (say, C) and just comparing them on a randomized sequence of operations for a while. Still, you need good test-cases or that effort is worthless. As soon as you have an external part of the system (Database server, web-server or client, etc.) DbC becomes far less effective during development and the biggest advantage is that you get a nice trace with contract violations when things go south in use.
The advantage of C is that the incompetent coders fail early and obviously. I would not call an exploding Ariane or a crashing Mars probe: fail early.
Now you are just being dishonest. The exploding Ariane was not a coding problem, but an integration and system test problem. Even one simulated launch with the code would have shown it. "Management" though that was too costly. This was not an engineering problem at all, but a business-process problem. And incidentally, that code was Ada, a "safe" language. The crashing Mars probe was a confusion between some obsolete and ancient units on one side and metric on the other. Again, not a coding problem and certainly not a coding language problem.
1.) Obvious lie is obvious. Nobody has that kind of budget these days, unless the "team" is so small as to be irrelevant. 2.) Even if really done, border conditions are critical. Cheap coders will produce utter crap in C that does not even compile. They will screw up more subtly in Rust, which makes the code worse in actual reality, but it will look better with regards to the usual bad software metrics. 3.) This hugely depends on the problem space and surrounding environment. 4.) "Was a bit hard to find people working in Rust": That already removes any scientific validity due to faulty sample selection. You would have needed to look for C people that were "a bit hard to find" at the very least.
Just look at the scientific literature here. It will claim things (with evidence) like that C++ is going to solve all problems of C or that Ada is really the language everybody will be coding in by the year 2000 and that it will fix everything, or, going back, that C will finally remove all the problems of assembler. Nothing like that has ever materialized, but all these claims can and have been "proven" with the right, scientifically invalid, studies.
"Have you written anything in Rust" is the the starting point of a manipulative and fundamentally dishonest propaganda technique step here. Well, sure, the question looks innocent. It is designed to look innocent. What will build on any answer is not. "No": Next is some variant of "you don't know what you are talking about". "Yes": "You are doing it wrong" or "you have not gotten to the inner mysteries yet, continue to pray and you will be enlightened". It is all so transparent and inept, it is utterly revolting.
And it is completely wrong. The answer to that question is totally irrelevant here. Its only possible purpose is as described above. I am just ahead of you here and I have seen this despicable type of dishonesty enough to recognize it early. And I have seen it used to hype numerous other "silver bullet" technologies, none of which have delivered over time.
Which brings us the one important reason not to use Rust: The cult-followership it has. Such communities are utterly toxic and eventually destroy everything they touch, if not decisively rebuffed. And these cults do not even ensure long-term availability of their currently chosen holy tool. They may just move on to some other hype at any time and then anybody that really built on the old hype is screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
All the reviewers, which do the main work, are working without pay anyways. The publishers (like Springer) are just greedy without bounds and without providing significant value. It is high time this stops.
Obviously.
Seriously. Don't fix things that are not broken.
Public transportation worldwide plans in 1 minute intervals or worse. The only exception I know is Zurich, were it is 30 seconds.
Unfortunately, the Bavarians have both. While technically there is no historic overlap between Bavaria and Prussia, the mind-set is quite present there.
And she is an actual scientist (PhD in Physics). How pathetic is that.
Coders aint cool, but they perform a vital function. The efforts to force fit others into that world will just make for unhappy, bad coders.
And that is exactly it. Also, working conditions and salaries are only good at the top were it becomes really hard to replace them.
Well, Bavaria is basically the insane asylum of Germany (to quote Otto), so nothing surprises me there. I only follow German politics casually these days, although I used to live there.
As that is not happening, it is also not a problem. There are just some Nazis (yes, AfD has now openly collaborated with Nazis) that what to panic the population to profit from it.
Good point. My take also.
Well to be fair, these moron coders (well, the subset that can actually produce code that at least works somewhat) are ensuring a significant portion of my main job (IT security consulting), so you have a point.
What sort of program might a kid write that actually teaches any useful skills for a world were almost any useful piece of software is networked in some way? If we want coding education to be useful, it must not just be toy code that does nothing meaningful.
You have no idea what Mathematics actually is. Basic calculus (and I gather you have not done any n-space or non-standard Calculus or any related proof theory?) is like 0.1% of it and it mostly serves to support classical engineering. What is taught in school only scratches the surface. Same with programming.
To be fair, this basically just makes the stupid easier to see.
Stupidity is the name of the game in Germany when the government collides with the Internet.
All German federal activities in the Internet so far have been uninformed, counter-productive, very late and generally of negative utility. This one will be the same.
There is very little math in school. Just some elementary introductory algebra and maybe some elementary introductory geometry. I am not opposed to some elementary introductory coding being in there as well, in fact any reasonable math class will include that at some time. But it will not be a "most beneficial" subject for any of those subjected to it.
As soon as you need reliability, security and performance, coding becomes anything but trivial. It also becomes something most people cannot master. Hence this just shows that 50% of parents have swallowed the propaganda.
The one thing humanity does not need is more bad coders. There are already far to many of them.
That explains a lot.
Ada is a complex mess that has long ago started being a huge problem. Eiffel is really nice, but only if you write good contracts for the Design-by-Contract part. That is time consuming and often really hard and probably negates the positive aspects with most coders (the majority is bad at it) on the market today.
Also, contracts do not eliminate bugs. They just allow detection at run-time (as long as the contracts do not have the same bugs) if you actually get test-coverage. I found that DbC works very well for things like complex data structures that you then can simply fuzz over a weekend and basically end up bug-free. But the same you can do by having a slow, safe implementation in a language well-suited for prototyping (say, Python) and the actual optimized target-implementation (say, C) and just comparing them on a randomized sequence of operations for a while. Still, you need good test-cases or that effort is worthless. As soon as you have an external part of the system (Database server, web-server or client, etc.) DbC becomes far less effective during development and the biggest advantage is that you get a nice trace with contract violations when things go south in use.
No, they are not. And they are both most definitely not related to the language used. Maybe actually read the official investigation reports.
The advantage of C is that the incompetent coders fail early and obviously.
I would not call an exploding Ariane or a crashing Mars probe: fail early.
Now you are just being dishonest. The exploding Ariane was not a coding problem, but an integration and system test problem. Even one simulated launch with the code would have shown it. "Management" though that was too costly. This was not an engineering problem at all, but a business-process problem. And incidentally, that code was Ada, a "safe" language. The crashing Mars probe was a confusion between some obsolete and ancient units on one side and metric on the other. Again, not a coding problem and certainly not a coding language problem.
Opps, sorry. I read your claim the wrong way round. This way I get the joke. My apologies.
1.) Obvious lie is obvious. Nobody has that kind of budget these days, unless the "team" is so small as to be irrelevant.
2.) Even if really done, border conditions are critical. Cheap coders will produce utter crap in C that does not even compile. They will screw up more subtly in Rust, which makes the code worse in actual reality, but it will look better with regards to the usual bad software metrics.
3.) This hugely depends on the problem space and surrounding environment.
4.) "Was a bit hard to find people working in Rust": That already removes any scientific validity due to faulty sample selection. You would have needed to look for C people that were "a bit hard to find" at the very least.
Just look at the scientific literature here. It will claim things (with evidence) like that C++ is going to solve all problems of C or that Ada is really the language everybody will be coding in by the year 2000 and that it will fix everything, or, going back, that C will finally remove all the problems of assembler. Nothing like that has ever materialized, but all these claims can and have been "proven" with the right, scientifically invalid, studies.
"Have you written anything in Rust" is the the starting point of a manipulative and fundamentally dishonest propaganda technique step here. Well, sure, the question looks innocent. It is designed to look innocent. What will build on any answer is not. "No": Next is some variant of "you don't know what you are talking about". "Yes": "You are doing it wrong" or "you have not gotten to the inner mysteries yet, continue to pray and you will be enlightened". It is all so transparent and inept, it is utterly revolting.
And it is completely wrong. The answer to that question is totally irrelevant here. Its only possible purpose is as described above. I am just ahead of you here and I have seen this despicable type of dishonesty enough to recognize it early. And I have seen it used to hype numerous other "silver bullet" technologies, none of which have delivered over time.
Which brings us the one important reason not to use Rust: The cult-followership it has. Such communities are utterly toxic and eventually destroy everything they touch, if not decisively rebuffed. And these cults do not even ensure long-term availability of their currently chosen holy tool. They may just move on to some other hype at any time and then anybody that really built on the old hype is screwed.