Company A does something of which certain other people disapprove. Employee B leaves said business several months later and gives no public reason for the departure. Anonymous spectator C says "Employee B left because of Company A's action of course!"
Is this not FUD? Is FUD fair? Perhaps it's only unfair to a small degree, but that's shallow justification.
... it's apparent that the Linux Desktop is one of the items Novell will NOT continue.
What prevents Novell from promoting or hiring to fill the architect position? If you know more than you inferred from a press release, please do share.
Perhaps you can measure the fairness of both actions and find this one much less unfair, but it's difficult for me to believe that any solution to injustice is more injustice.
The speculation in the submission is unnecessary. Regardless of my personal feelings about the Novell-Microsoft deal, this looks like an opportunistic attempt to re-open an old debate. That's not fair to anyone actually involved.
Object Oriented concepts we take for granted in Java (interfaces, abstract classes, private methods, final assignments, etc.) are not enforceable in vanilla Javascript.
I won't defend the difficulty of relying on other packages in JavaScript, but Java's idea of OO is by no means the only way. Arguably, it's not the best way either--structural subtyping is a curious decision, at best.
If Red Hat can get more money for support by making things more complex or more likely to break they will...
Ahh, that explains why auto insurance companies hire snipers to shoot out tires from interstate overpasses! They make more money if people need more collision insurance!
I really like the idea of Extreme Programming and building an app a little at a time. But I've found it's a LOT easier to have a vision of the end-goal and work towards that, rather than work on a little piece at a time as if that piece was a distinct unit.
That seems perfectly compatible with XP and agile development to me. A friend of mine wrote an excellent piece on product vision in agile development as part of an upcoming book.
How many of the F/OSS programmers have design specifications finished and approved before the first line of code is written? Compare to the realities of commercial programming.
What commercial coding adds is discipline.
Discipline and dictatorial approach affect the result a lot. Basically, every commercial product is designed either by one person, or by very small group of people. This person (or group) has complete control over every aspect of the product; s/he might be wrong but at least the product is consistent, and not designed by a committee as it sometimes happens.
Where in the world have you worked? This is so far from my experience that I'm starting to wonder if I ever worked in software at all.
I'm looking around for a big rock to kick, you immaterialist!
Re:Ruby as a first language?
on
Beginning Ruby
·
· Score: 1
... the perl that I write is almost a different language from the perl that everybody else writes - which helps make it an intuitive language, but at the same time makes it hard as hell to read somebody else's perl code; which, in a production environment is simple unacceptable.
Why are you not following your team's coding standards?
By "lexical" do you mean "invariant"? If so, then you're right, Larry kept them variant (now there's a phrase twisting out of control) to retain backwards compatibility with everything back to Perl 1, sort of. Perl 1 had a couple of odd rules for sigil variance related to hashes, I believe.
... and doubt Perl 6 all you want, but I just fixed a bug in Parrot a few minutes ago.
And it's because Perl 5 is backwards compatible with Perl 4 which didn't have lexical namespaces...
It has nothing to do with that. It would have been perfectly possible to have invariant sigils with the typeglob system.
Re:When you step back and consider history
on
Beginning Ruby
·
· Score: 1
Since Perl and Haskell (Pugs) seem to have been dating for a while now, it is curious to see how the shabby blue collar man that is Perl will be transformed by the dainty, complex and academic girl that is Haskell.
Perl 6 already had many of the interesting features of Haskell in one form or another (though usually not the purely-functional form) before Pugs existed. One notable exception is STM.
I spent much of my younger years fighting every perceived wrong I could find. I won a few battles. I lost most of them. Most importantly, I learned a few things.
Not every battle matters. I'm not the right person to fight every battle. Sometimes you can win one battle and lose more important ones. Sometimes fighting isn't the right thing to do.
Like I said, I'm not going to defend that patent, and I oppose the practices of software patents in the US, but I believe it's, at best, a mistake to condemn someone for not fighting every single battle you think might be important--especially if you're both fighting for the same principles overall.
O'Reilly has the money and the influence to help strike out this dumb patent...
I won't defend the patent (it's the reason I do not do business with Amazon.com), but I do think you severely underestimate the amount of money and influence it would take to challenge that patent.
Slashdot Mirror
Company A does something of which certain other people disapprove. Employee B leaves said business several months later and gives no public reason for the departure. Anonymous spectator C says "Employee B left because of Company A's action of course!"
Is this not FUD? Is FUD fair? Perhaps it's only unfair to a small degree, but that's shallow justification.
What prevents Novell from promoting or hiring to fill the architect position? If you know more than you inferred from a press release, please do share.
Perhaps you can measure the fairness of both actions and find this one much less unfair, but it's difficult for me to believe that any solution to injustice is more injustice.
The speculation in the submission is unnecessary. Regardless of my personal feelings about the Novell-Microsoft deal, this looks like an opportunistic attempt to re-open an old debate. That's not fair to anyone actually involved.
I won't defend the difficulty of relying on other packages in JavaScript, but Java's idea of OO is by no means the only way. Arguably, it's not the best way either--structural subtyping is a curious decision, at best.
Besides you, who said anything about requiring any users to become developers? Contributors, yes. Developers, no.
It has nothing to do with selling; it's only about distribution.
The OpenSSH developers certainly complained.
Ahh, that explains why auto insurance companies hire snipers to shoot out tires from interstate overpasses! They make more money if people need more collision insurance!
Perhaps, for example, there are more PS2s in the world than current consoles.
That seems perfectly compatible with XP and agile development to me. A friend of mine wrote an excellent piece on product vision in agile development as part of an upcoming book.
Where in the world have you worked? This is so far from my experience that I'm starting to wonder if I ever worked in software at all.
I'm looking around for a big rock to kick, you immaterialist!
Why are you not following your team's coding standards?
I dislike significant vertical whitespace, especially when combined with automagical variable scoping.
Let me fix this sentence for you:
Wow. Sorry, I can't fix that one.
By "lexical" do you mean "invariant"? If so, then you're right, Larry kept them variant (now there's a phrase twisting out of control) to retain backwards compatibility with everything back to Perl 1, sort of. Perl 1 had a couple of odd rules for sigil variance related to hashes, I believe.
... and doubt Perl 6 all you want, but I just fixed a bug in Parrot a few minutes ago.
It has nothing to do with that. It would have been perfectly possible to have invariant sigils with the typeglob system.
Perl 6 already had many of the interesting features of Haskell in one form or another (though usually not the purely-functional form) before Pugs existed. One notable exception is STM.
Wow, that really raised my awareness of the value of raising awareness! I'm nominating your post for the 2007 Awareness awards.
I spent much of my younger years fighting every perceived wrong I could find. I won a few battles. I lost most of them. Most importantly, I learned a few things.
Not every battle matters. I'm not the right person to fight every battle. Sometimes you can win one battle and lose more important ones. Sometimes fighting isn't the right thing to do.
Like I said, I'm not going to defend that patent, and I oppose the practices of software patents in the US, but I believe it's, at best, a mistake to condemn someone for not fighting every single battle you think might be important--especially if you're both fighting for the same principles overall.
I won't defend the patent (it's the reason I do not do business with Amazon.com), but I do think you severely underestimate the amount of money and influence it would take to challenge that patent.
There's no way I could contribute as much free software as I've used.
The songwriters still receive royalties, though I believe that's a fixed rate. (I never joined either US-based songwriting guild.)
I can't see how that makes it acceptable. Harassing and threatening other people is still wrong, even if they've written books and given talks.