It don't surprise me that it seems to correlate to the age of the language multiplied by how widespread the use, with "newer" languages that are widely used being the most represented.
I don't think it has anything to do with how difficult Javascript is, but more to what the programming experience is of the person using the language. I'm sure there are more would be more posts asking about QBasic than LISP if there was internet in 1994 like there is today.
Also people using C/Java/etc. can self-teach by digging through libraries themselves.
Age only tells part of the story. I think everyone can agree that JavaScript is special, but here's why I think the 100% or less languages ended up where they did:
Java and C++ are established, well documented, and developers tend to be working in teams rather than isolation (I assume Objective-C has similar characteristics but I will not claim to know such).
PHP tends to (but isn't always) used by hobbyist or in isolation.
Ruby and Python are relatively new to the scene and have been experiencing a lot of change (Rails 1, 2, and now 3 with a little bit of Merb; Django, Pylons and Pyramid). Knowledge share occurs primarily online and to be honest, documentation isn't all that great (partially do to the rapid change).
C is written by engineers locked in a basement without access to the internet (so no one can hear their screams for help;-)
Actually no, I pay my rent electronically.
But you're right in the sense that rent is pretty much the last hold out. Mortgages are generally all electronic now. I don't think I've paid anything else with a check since the 90s. All my bills are auto-billed. It was actually a problem when I moved to a different state, because they wanted a utility bill in addition to a lease to establish residency and I didn't have any.
My last place wanted to charge me a 2.9% convenience fee for auto payments from my checking account (not credit card). I chose to pay 42 cents instead.
I would say the mars rovers were a better bang for the buck, but hubble is a close second even with all the retrofits.
I still find it a shame that the last shuttle mission wasn't a trip to the hubble to bring it home. just like the shuttle were designed to do.
Other than for it to go into a museum, what would be the benefit of spending millions of dollars bringing 20-year-old technology back to earth (rather than letting it spend another 10 years in space)? Sure you can say stuff like "to see what the effects of 20 years in 0-gravity were" but we have other examples.
Or their objective isn't specifically verifying the individual in front of them.
Picture this: a hiring manager at some medium company reads an article about the brain teasers asked by Microsoft and Google interviewers. He wants his application process to seem more like theirs so they can say they are doing MS / Google style interviews (which sounds good to other managers and executives and theoretically impresses applicants).
Fair enough if you're unemployed, but I'd certainly not cost my free time at zero!
I suspect most people don't. I see my free time as having an opportunity cost; I must chose where to put my productive energy to (since I can't do everything). However, I know that I can try things without it actually costing me much.
Now factor in the cost of your time vs working in a 'normal' job, time spent in both learning the new technology, writing the app and then supporting it.
This trade-off only applies if the developer quit their day job (not already unemployed) or are hourly with the opportunity to work lots of overtime (which is relatively rare). If nothing else, hopefully they learn new skills to incorporate in their current or future projects.
I hate to admit it, but his crazy ideas start looking a little less crazy every day. I do respect him for sticking to his ideals but he takes a sledge hammer to things that really need a little more precision.
Maybe, but wouldn't it be nice to have someone who sticks to their ideals for once (even if you only agree with most of them).
Perhaps after 4 (or 8) years in office he would leave our domestic policies cleaner then when he found it.
The price of everything else is up 20% in the past few years (other than salaries), so why not Redbox? Netflix raised their base price 60%, and fumbled with Qwickster - different story.
It would be great if the value of the dollar were stable, but it's not, so prices rise. Thanks, Helicopter Ben.
Agreed. This is an example of a price being raised a small amount that won't affect the overall demand for the product (and yet isn't on a critical product or service that puts strain on a family's budget).
I cannot do that, because as United proves "economy plus" means 2 inches more leg room on a plane too old to have any in flight entertainment, worse than average food and flights that never take off on time.
It used to mean 5. I think they made up for it by shrinking the regular seats by 3 inches.
I used to be United-only. Then my girlfriend introduced me to Southwest. The boarding process was funny (just A, B and C at the time) and no in-flight entertainment, but they almost always got me in on time and they served Dr. Pepper. In contrast, United's customer service has gotten more elitist and boarding a flight is a fight for over-head space (the last Southwest flight I was on had half-empty overhead bins; free checked bags FTW).
You may be a successful software developer, but you don't understand economics very well. Lowering federal student loan support will decrease the demand for degrees. This will cause demand for college to drop. Therefore, the price of degrees will also drop to more affordable levels.
This is the market behavior unless demand sinks below the minimum price the suppliers can offer. When this happens, prices can drastically increase due to suppliers choosing to sell to a smaller consumer group that is more wealthy.
We need reform, but the question is what will that look like? Less bureaucracy? Less for-profit institutions (which effectively are just trade-schools)?
Internet restored old rule: You can make money as an artist IF you are willing to perform your art in LIVE and there is audience willing to pay for it. There was brief window in history, like 100 years, where this rule was changed in a strange way: it was enough to perform ONCE, make recording of it, and then sell recordings instead of performances. This model could work only when sharing of data was difficult. That model is going away, with or without crying loud or imposing (never quite working) copyright walls. It is really bad for films, for example, you cannot perform it live. But, cinemas and broadcasters are giving lots of money to film industry for broadcasting rights. They will only loose "DVD money". I think think they will survive just fine.
I disagree that it's really bad for films as consumers are still very inclined to buy a DVD or Blu-ray even with options like Netflix and Red Box.
"Strong Copyright is *not* about protecting the public"
sheesh.... No matter how hard I try to proof read, I still screw up! We need to be able to edit our own posts Slashdot!
And yet there are those select few who think you were correct the first time.
You mean it was better back when more people were dying in airports than there were people whining about hijackings? I'm not so sure.
When was that, actually?
No, seriously. No one's getting killed in the airports. There was one horrific day that no one sane wishes to see repeated. Without any change in security, the circumstances that allowed the attack to occur were gone: placid passengers who would quietly let themselves be highjacked.
More to your point, is it worth it to molest (or violate in another way) one million passengers to save one life? Because at best this is how much protection we are getting from this.
New Orleans flooded because the city got cheap on their sea walls.
I would say New Orleans flooded because they decided to build a city in a place requiring sea walls to keep the streets dry. At best it's a calculated risk that the sea walls will keep the city dry
This is sort of like the "wire fraud" laws used against businesses. They never did anything related to wire fraud, but it's kind of a catch-all for "you did business in a shady way to get money from people." In this case, it's "you tracked people in a shady way."
What we really need is our laws to be updated to reflect technology rather than using laws created back when telegraph lines were high-tech.
Apparently 14 of them now. I don't know how profitable they are though as MS has not divulged or bragged about that aspect. Apple retails stores do seem profitable.
I walked in one once. It's eery how they are total rip off of the Apple store. I think the employee uniforms, furniture and paint came from the same supplier.
I can't tell the difference between a Honda and a Toyota 9 times out of 10, and I drive a Honda. If my GF didn't have a sun roof, and there was no hood ornament, I'd have absolutely no way of distinguishing her silver Corolla from the neighbors silver Civic. What exactly is this supposed to prove?
Why are people not up in arms about anyone being called a Czar in our government. A Czar is royalty. We should all be screaming about anyone in our government being declared royalty.
Really? Because a bureaucrat in charge of a particular area is called a "Czar"? This isn't actually new.
I'm not commenting on her job performance, but pettiness over semantics like this is why the Rs and Ds can drive a wedge between Americans.
Did you know that the RX-7 "FD" (early 90s) is still in the "Super Stock" auto-cross class along with brand-new Corvettes and Porsches? It's by far the oldest car in the category and arguably the best example so far of what a rotary car can do. Admittedly, it has reliability issues but it was very good at getting around the track.
The quote was at the end of the pilot, not in the movie. Simon's line right before was "I'm trying to put this as delicately as I can... How do I know you won't kill me in my sleep?"
Slashdot Mirror
They also don't have a welfare state.
Which state is that? Delaware?
It don't surprise me that it seems to correlate to the age of the language multiplied by how widespread the use, with "newer" languages that are widely used being the most represented.
I don't think it has anything to do with how difficult Javascript is, but more to what the programming experience is of the person using the language. I'm sure there are more would be more posts asking about QBasic than LISP if there was internet in 1994 like there is today.
Also people using C/Java/etc. can self-teach by digging through libraries themselves.
Age only tells part of the story. I think everyone can agree that JavaScript is special, but here's why I think the 100% or less languages ended up where they did:
Actually no, I pay my rent electronically. But you're right in the sense that rent is pretty much the last hold out. Mortgages are generally all electronic now. I don't think I've paid anything else with a check since the 90s. All my bills are auto-billed. It was actually a problem when I moved to a different state, because they wanted a utility bill in addition to a lease to establish residency and I didn't have any.
My last place wanted to charge me a 2.9% convenience fee for auto payments from my checking account (not credit card). I chose to pay 42 cents instead.
I would say the mars rovers were a better bang for the buck, but hubble is a close second even with all the retrofits.
I still find it a shame that the last shuttle mission wasn't a trip to the hubble to bring it home. just like the shuttle were designed to do.
Other than for it to go into a museum, what would be the benefit of spending millions of dollars bringing 20-year-old technology back to earth (rather than letting it spend another 10 years in space)? Sure you can say stuff like "to see what the effects of 20 years in 0-gravity were" but we have other examples.
Whatever happened to tests like drinking the interview panel under the table?
Now that is a skill needed on the job.
Recreate late-night thinking by preceding the test with 3-4 shots?
Or their objective isn't specifically verifying the individual in front of them.
Picture this: a hiring manager at some medium company reads an article about the brain teasers asked by Microsoft and Google interviewers. He wants his application process to seem more like theirs so they can say they are doing MS / Google style interviews (which sounds good to other managers and executives and theoretically impresses applicants).
Fair enough if you're unemployed, but I'd certainly not cost my free time at zero!
I suspect most people don't. I see my free time as having an opportunity cost; I must chose where to put my productive energy to (since I can't do everything). However, I know that I can try things without it actually costing me much.
Now factor in the cost of your time vs working in a 'normal' job, time spent in both learning the new technology, writing the app and then supporting it.
This trade-off only applies if the developer quit their day job (not already unemployed) or are hourly with the opportunity to work lots of overtime (which is relatively rare). If nothing else, hopefully they learn new skills to incorporate in their current or future projects.
I hate to admit it, but his crazy ideas start looking a little less crazy every day. I do respect him for sticking to his ideals but he takes a sledge hammer to things that really need a little more precision.
Maybe, but wouldn't it be nice to have someone who sticks to their ideals for once (even if you only agree with most of them).
Perhaps after 4 (or 8) years in office he would leave our domestic policies cleaner then when he found it.
The price of everything else is up 20% in the past few years (other than salaries), so why not Redbox? Netflix raised their base price 60%, and fumbled with Qwickster - different story.
It would be great if the value of the dollar were stable, but it's not, so prices rise. Thanks, Helicopter Ben.
Agreed. This is an example of a price being raised a small amount that won't affect the overall demand for the product (and yet isn't on a critical product or service that puts strain on a family's budget).
Well played, Redbox, well played.
I cannot do that, because as United proves "economy plus" means 2 inches more leg room on a plane too old to have any in flight entertainment, worse than average food and flights that never take off on time.
It used to mean 5. I think they made up for it by shrinking the regular seats by 3 inches.
I used to be United-only. Then my girlfriend introduced me to Southwest. The boarding process was funny (just A, B and C at the time) and no in-flight entertainment, but they almost always got me in on time and they served Dr. Pepper. In contrast, United's customer service has gotten more elitist and boarding a flight is a fight for over-head space (the last Southwest flight I was on had half-empty overhead bins; free checked bags FTW).
You may be a successful software developer, but you don't understand economics very well. Lowering federal student loan support will decrease the demand for degrees. This will cause demand for college to drop. Therefore, the price of degrees will also drop to more affordable levels.
This is the market behavior unless demand sinks below the minimum price the suppliers can offer. When this happens, prices can drastically increase due to suppliers choosing to sell to a smaller consumer group that is more wealthy.
We need reform, but the question is what will that look like? Less bureaucracy? Less for-profit institutions (which effectively are just trade-schools)?
Internet restored old rule: You can make money as an artist IF you are willing to perform your art in LIVE and there is audience willing to pay for it. There was brief window in history, like 100 years, where this rule was changed in a strange way: it was enough to perform ONCE, make recording of it, and then sell recordings instead of performances. This model could work only when sharing of data was difficult. That model is going away, with or without crying loud or imposing (never quite working) copyright walls. It is really bad for films, for example, you cannot perform it live. But, cinemas and broadcasters are giving lots of money to film industry for broadcasting rights. They will only loose "DVD money". I think think they will survive just fine.
I disagree that it's really bad for films as consumers are still very inclined to buy a DVD or Blu-ray even with options like Netflix and Red Box.
"Strong Copyright is *not* about protecting the public" sheesh.... No matter how hard I try to proof read, I still screw up! We need to be able to edit our own posts Slashdot!
And yet there are those select few who think you were correct the first time.
You mean it was better back when more people were dying in airports than there were people whining about hijackings? I'm not so sure.
When was that, actually?
No, seriously. No one's getting killed in the airports. There was one horrific day that no one sane wishes to see repeated. Without any change in security, the circumstances that allowed the attack to occur were gone: placid passengers who would quietly let themselves be highjacked.
More to your point, is it worth it to molest (or violate in another way) one million passengers to save one life? Because at best this is how much protection we are getting from this.
New Orleans flooded because the city got cheap on their sea walls.
I would say New Orleans flooded because they decided to build a city in a place requiring sea walls to keep the streets dry. At best it's a calculated risk that the sea walls will keep the city dry
This is sort of like the "wire fraud" laws used against businesses. They never did anything related to wire fraud, but it's kind of a catch-all for "you did business in a shady way to get money from people." In this case, it's "you tracked people in a shady way."
What we really need is our laws to be updated to reflect technology rather than using laws created back when telegraph lines were high-tech.
Apparently 14 of them now. I don't know how profitable they are though as MS has not divulged or bragged about that aspect. Apple retails stores do seem profitable.
I walked in one once. It's eery how they are total rip off of the Apple store. I think the employee uniforms, furniture and paint came from the same supplier.
I can't tell the difference between a Honda and a Toyota 9 times out of 10, and I drive a Honda. If my GF didn't have a sun roof, and there was no hood ornament, I'd have absolutely no way of distinguishing her silver Corolla from the neighbors silver Civic. What exactly is this supposed to prove?
That you need new glasses? :-)
Why are people not up in arms about anyone being called a Czar in our government. A Czar is royalty. We should all be screaming about anyone in our government being declared royalty.
Really? Because a bureaucrat in charge of a particular area is called a "Czar"? This isn't actually new.
I'm not commenting on her job performance, but pettiness over semantics like this is why the Rs and Ds can drive a wedge between Americans.
That must have changed either for the 2010 or 2011 season.
Its not all that great for a sports car.
The SCCA disagrees.
Did you know that the RX-7 "FD" (early 90s) is still in the "Super Stock" auto-cross class along with brand-new Corvettes and Porsches? It's by far the oldest car in the category and arguably the best example so far of what a rotary car can do. Admittedly, it has reliability issues but it was very good at getting around the track.
Agreed. If I'm in a coding mood, then you'll usually find me coding. Otherwise you'll find me in front of an FPS, RPG, or platformer.
This is why 11 years later I'm still playing Counter-Strike.
Were non-techies using those to type up their English papers? I didn't think so...
Uh, you might want to watch the movie again.
The quote was at the end of the pilot, not in the movie. Simon's line right before was "I'm trying to put this as delicately as I can... How do I know you won't kill me in my sleep?"