Just because I've used a language for years doesn't mean I know anything about it.
If it takes so long to get decent use out of it, then perhaps it is flawed. I've yet to see a practical demonstration of JS's benefits. Most examples from other JS proponents use extreme cases, use "lab toy" examples that don't fit real-world situations I actually see in the wild, are personal preferences that vary per coder, or conjure up some obscure property that echos farfegnugen and claim I "just don't get it".
They are right, I don't get JS's benefits. It's a poor language in my eye.
I once went round and round with a Node.js proponent on that very issue. Although he was hype-heavy in general, he did come up with one practical scenario: your request (query) has to get info from two separate databases and glue the results together at client side. You can issue the two SQL queries without one having to wait for the other.
Granted, it's not a very frequent need, and there are other possible constructs for parallelism besides Node.js's approach.
I don't care what they call it, just don't make it goofy, like they did with JS. Round-about OOP, overloaded concatenation operations, goofy hidden-flag type system, no optional parameter type checking, no optional named parameters, and a goofy CASE statement (copied C's stupid BREAK approach).
It begs the question: why were they using few layers and skipping annotation in the past? The hardware couldn't handle it? They were too lazy to implement such? They needed a Flux Capacitor to make them work together? The boss didn't like the "look and feel" of the diagrams? It crashed Windows XP?
Here's a patent-generating algorithm inspired by the "business process" nonsense of receiving patents just for automating long-known manual processes and/or putting them "on the internet":
activities = "deliver pizza, make calls, send message, give birth, etc."; methods = "rocket, lasers, internet, light, quantum fluctuations, hiccups, etc."; for a = each(activities) {
for m = each(methods) {
print (a + " via " + m + ".");
} }
I've tried to "slide away" from Microsoft solutions over the years, but the bottom line is that Microsoft-related work pays the bills. When the bottom fell out of the IT market after the dot-com bubble popped, Microsoft shops kept me afloat when pickin's were slim.
Maybe that's the selfish point of view, but I have a family and bills. I don't know exactly why, but MS work just "pays". Some say it's comparable to being in a boy-band: no dignity, but you get a decent check.
Funny you mention small businesses. My conservative relative and I both agreed that small business interests are often overshadowed by large business interests because large businesses have much more political power, and sometimes prefer to put laws in place to benefit large businesses over small ones to kill their competition.
It's not "socialists" doing it, but crony capitalists legally bribing politicians to put barriers up against their smaller competition.
Our patent system is arguably a result of that: it favors those who can collect a war-chest of fuzzy patents to do battle with other large companies. The smaller companies get machine-gunned with patent suits and have to fold or pay huge royalties or lawyer fees.
I didn't mean to imply that micromanaging all production is the only possible solution or experiment. We can tax the wealthy more, for example. I agree that we need a certain degree of market incentives. It's not all or nothing.
Do you know many innovative bureaucrats ?
I haven't seen any good survey to confirm or deny their numbers. The Internet and World Wide Web came about mostly from gov't research projects, I would note.
Again, you are using the past to predict the future. Extrapolating the past with a different technology profile to predict best future fit is a very imperfect tool.
You need to do a better job of explaining why you are so certain those economic patterns will continue. A 100 year history of them is not good enough to conclude they will last another 100.
The new "replacement" jobs were pretty clear in the past. They are not this time around.
And patterns of human behavior are not necessarily the same as economic patterns. Human nature has NOT changed over the last 100 years, technology has. Our brains' are the same, our machines are not.
Economics is a "soft" science, unfortunately. We cannot fork the Earth and try different things to see what happens at fixed levels of technology advancement. Economists thus have to tease patterns out of multiple variables changing at the same time.
And we might have to just experiment with actual economies. What worked for the last 100 years may NOT work for the next.
Slashdot Mirror
Grand Theft Auto - Microsoft Bob Edition
Or, Angry Bobs
Is there a Vegas slot for that prediction?
640k threads should be enough for anybody :-)
If it takes so long to get decent use out of it, then perhaps it is flawed. I've yet to see a practical demonstration of JS's benefits. Most examples from other JS proponents use extreme cases, use "lab toy" examples that don't fit real-world situations I actually see in the wild, are personal preferences that vary per coder, or conjure up some obscure property that echos farfegnugen and claim I "just don't get it".
They are right, I don't get JS's benefits. It's a poor language in my eye.
Non-blocking white-spaces?
I once went round and round with a Node.js proponent on that very issue. Although he was hype-heavy in general, he did come up with one practical scenario: your request (query) has to get info from two separate databases and glue the results together at client side. You can issue the two SQL queries without one having to wait for the other.
Granted, it's not a very frequent need, and there are other possible constructs for parallelism besides Node.js's approach.
I don't care what they call it, just don't make it goofy, like they did with JS. Round-about OOP, overloaded concatenation operations, goofy hidden-flag type system, no optional parameter type checking, no optional named parameters, and a goofy CASE statement (copied C's stupid BREAK approach).
I can, but it would take me 3 times as long. Needless to say, different languages fit different needs differently.
But I've spent a lot of money on the spike-boots. In fact, I have to rob a bank to pay for them.
You try working spike-boots upside-down in a mask, bub
When there is a competition to test solutions, do they call it a "face off" or a "face face off"?
It begs the question: why were they using few layers and skipping annotation in the past? The hardware couldn't handle it? They were too lazy to implement such? They needed a Flux Capacitor to make them work together? The boss didn't like the "look and feel" of the diagrams? It crashed Windows XP?
Rats, there goes my ceiling-walking bank-robbery plans.
Here's a patent-generating algorithm inspired by the "business process" nonsense of receiving patents just for automating long-known manual processes and/or putting them "on the internet":
I've tried to "slide away" from Microsoft solutions over the years, but the bottom line is that Microsoft-related work pays the bills. When the bottom fell out of the IT market after the dot-com bubble popped, Microsoft shops kept me afloat when pickin's were slim.
Maybe that's the selfish point of view, but I have a family and bills. I don't know exactly why, but MS work just "pays". Some say it's comparable to being in a boy-band: no dignity, but you get a decent check.
Agreed! Anti-kudos for that one. Mad panic for the volume slider.
They could tell you why DARPA funded it, but then they'd have to kill you :-)
The researchers were going to publish the study, but they wouldn't cooperate with the publishers.
Funny you mention small businesses. My conservative relative and I both agreed that small business interests are often overshadowed by large business interests because large businesses have much more political power, and sometimes prefer to put laws in place to benefit large businesses over small ones to kill their competition.
It's not "socialists" doing it, but crony capitalists legally bribing politicians to put barriers up against their smaller competition.
Our patent system is arguably a result of that: it favors those who can collect a war-chest of fuzzy patents to do battle with other large companies. The smaller companies get machine-gunned with patent suits and have to fold or pay huge royalties or lawyer fees.
It was a general example. I didn't mean it as selecting a specific agency to collect tax or whatnot.
Again, I am not promoting mass micromanaging as a solution.
It is now, Americans are overweight.
I didn't mean to imply that micromanaging all production is the only possible solution or experiment. We can tax the wealthy more, for example. I agree that we need a certain degree of market incentives. It's not all or nothing.
I haven't seen any good survey to confirm or deny their numbers. The Internet and World Wide Web came about mostly from gov't research projects, I would note.
Again, you are using the past to predict the future. Extrapolating the past with a different technology profile to predict best future fit is a very imperfect tool.
You need to do a better job of explaining why you are so certain those economic patterns will continue. A 100 year history of them is not good enough to conclude they will last another 100.
The new "replacement" jobs were pretty clear in the past. They are not this time around.
And patterns of human behavior are not necessarily the same as economic patterns. Human nature has NOT changed over the last 100 years, technology has. Our brains' are the same, our machines are not.
The pace per this incident probably is unrealistic, but the concept itself is not. Our sterilization technology is known to be imperfect.
Economics is a "soft" science, unfortunately. We cannot fork the Earth and try different things to see what happens at fixed levels of technology advancement. Economists thus have to tease patterns out of multiple variables changing at the same time.
And we might have to just experiment with actual economies. What worked for the last 100 years may NOT work for the next.
The terms are overloaded in actual usage. I generally go by the usage of "conservative" meaning less domestic gov't intervention in the economy.