The ECB should create more money and give it to Greece, as the US gave money to Europe after World War II with the Marshall Plan.
Yeah, that's the ticket, just "create more money" and give it to whoever you think is morally deserving. What could go wrong? Everybody can eat if you just print them a few billion Zimbabwe dollars.
And no. The Marshall Plan was to rebuild after war. Most of it went to the Western Powers. You can't default on generous loans and then whine and cry because nobody trusts you with loans, and compare your bad credit to being bombed in a war. That is just total crap. Come to the US and ask people here about it. They'll look at you like you're crazy, because it is apples and bricks, not even apples and oranges. You really think we're your sugar momma and we're gonna just come over and hand you free money? Get a clue. When was the last time Greece came to the US and gave us a bunch of free money? Never? Never? Really? Not even 1 time?! OK, then.
Well gosh, I don't see how refusing to "live within your means" will get you living above your means even after your credit rating hits 0 and you can't borrow other people's money.
Moralizing gets you what? It gets you living withing your means, because nobody will loan you anything.;) Oh, and a crashed economy too. And decades of poverty.
Borrowing everything you can to live outside your means doesn't get you the good life. It increases your poverty. It decreases the "means" that you have to live by.
People think when we say to "live within your means" we're engaging in some sort of moralizing. We're not. It is a physical statement. It is like saying, "eat within what you can get your hands on" or "eat what you can grow or buy or earn or otherwise acquire." Live within your lifespan. Walk within your speed capabilities. Don't bite off more than you can chew. Fly within the flight capabilities of your aircraft. You can't get a free lunch.
Blaming the Germans for your poverty won't put any food on your plate.
There was a documentary showing that EVERYONE knew that Greece didn't meet the qualifications to join the EU, but the expansion drift of the EU of that time didn't care at that time.
If that is what some unnamed "documentary" claimed to show, then we can tell it was just horse shit without even viewing it. I'm guessing that the claims were actually somewhat different, or it was so obviously bad that it isn't worth naming it.
I'll give you hint: Anybody who tells you what "EVERYONE knew" is full of shit.
Why? It's the person who believes the lie, or knows that's it's a lie and uses it for profit that creates the problem. Liars are liars. The profiteers are criminal.
Excellent job paraphrasing the Greek position. However, don't expect the bankers to forgive loans on the basis of, "it's your fault you loaned it to me, you should have known I was lying."
It is a rather funny position. If you attempt some long-term thinking and address the problem without country names, it should be pretty obvious that without the loans they would be poor, and they're guaranteeing increased future poverty by refusing to live within their means. Even if you believe in the moral position, it should be obvious that the bankers won't agree, and won't give handouts on that basis.
Total fail even if you agree with the position! That is some seriously deep fail.
You seem to have that backwards. Dividing your five dollars by zero is like dividing it among zero people and suddenly, poof, it's gone!
Right. Exactly my point, except that I used "pieces" instead of "people." Which is to say, when you're dividing equally between n people, the unit isn't actually the people but the count of people. If you're dividing into labelled jars it is exactly the same, and the jars aren't the units either; the count of portions is. You don't divide by the people, you divide by the count of people. The other person claiming apples/oranges is making the same mistake. And the unit issues shouldn't even come up when the issue is divide-by-zero, which doesn't implicate units at all.
It always cracks me up when people misunderstand me, presume I said something that doesn't make sense, and then correct me by paraphrasing what I actually said but presented as a contradiction.
I guess it is no wonder that people can't map real human scenarios that rely on numbers to mathematics very well; they're already off by -2n most of the time. But you got the essential element; when you divide into zero pieces, it means you have zero pieces when you're done dividing. People will insist such behavior is "undefined," but actually it is defined; either as an error condition, an action that is not allowed (an exception) or as infinity. On a computer this is defined differently for floats (infinity) and ints (exception). The idea that it is undefined is simply ideology run amok, and repeated for decades by school teachers. We have multiple competing definitions right now, for different problem domains. The idea that we "can't" have a sensible default for non-academic situations is pretty silly. Luckily the solution is also easy; don't use numbers directly in code, use objects that represent the units and overload the math operators when using those units so that sensible defaults will present themselves. For example, money classes can return 0. Graphics classes can return 0. Physics-simulation-related classes can return infinity. Still, it would reduce the code complexity in most cases to have the computer defaulting to 0 and having it raise exceptions or return infinity for special academic math types.
I think this shows it was perhaps mistaken of early computer scientists to treat computer numbers as if the job of the computer is purely mathematical. If early programmers had been logicians or philosophers instead of mathematicians, we'd probably have pragmatic real numbers for standard use, and special functions or types for academic math.
Asking what is X divided by zero is no different than asking what is Y plus red, or what is Z times pineapple.
We had five bucks, and we decided to divide it up. After we were done dividing, the money was all gone. That is dividing by zero. It was divided into zero pieces. The inputs are the number of pieces you end up with, and the original value. The size of each piece is the output. So given that you know there are zero pieces in the end, you know that they have zero size, because of algebra.
This is true for almost any example involving money. Programmers who primarily deal with integers and money units find it natural to have anything that doesn't make sense to default to zero. If there was no result, and the units are money, it is accurate to say the result is zero dollars.
The problem is, this doesn't work well for people doing scientific programming, where they expect IEEE standard results, regardless of how much extra error checking this creates. And regardless of the fact that way over 99% of the time where divide by zero is possible, the sanity checks simply detect the zero, and assign the result of zero to some variable without doing the division. Still, they consider this good.
So in the end the answer is to use high level languages, and use money objects with sensible defaults instead of floats and ints for money values.
If nerds didn't desire quality sources of information about what is new in the technology sector, then I would agree it is a joke.
But no, actually it is just pathetic. And the most pathetic thing is, if somebody did a good job at it they would probably get a lot of readers from high value demographics. But it is impossible; editors are apparently compelled by some powerful force to cut corners continuously, even without any information theory analysis of how many corners would be too many. If they ever catch up with economic theory from the `90s, somebody will try a different method. I'll give it another 50 years.
The problem with attempting to assess his competence on slashdot is that people just assume that the goal is "the company makes more money" or "the stock price goes up." But in reality, if they're chasing dollars in a corporate environment the goal isn't to increase the stock price. The goal is often for the stock price to go up and down at convenient times, without (clearly) violating any rules. Other times the goal is more opaque. You can't follow the money, because they have tools to move it around where you can't see it, and much of it moves based on secret contracts with other mega-corps.
So abstract is the modern corporate governance environment, there is just no way to judge his competence or incompetence by the outcomes for the company itself. Even when a company appears to completely fail and go out of business, often the assets were "sold" to a subsidiary and then resold out of the company's control, and it was just a debt-laden shell that failed. From the sidelines the worst possible failure cannot be distinguished from the most magnificent success.
In the old days I hoped MS would fail. These days, they are no threat to anybody. I want the company to succeed because they make good keyboards. And that is a bigger impact on *nix users than anything they do in the software sector these days.
No, actually, having a different conclusion than you says nothing at all about my hearing. You might want to go to pedanticologist and get checked.
I stand by what I said. And your strange attack doesn't even need refutation, because you simply present an opinion as if it somehow disproves my opinion. I don't doubt that your opinion is indeed different than mine.
I don't doubt that their speaker received applause. I find it very odd though, this idea that that tells you anything about anything. If subjective applause gauges were a basis for industry analysis, Apple would have the largest market share in personal computers, mobile computers, personal media players, and cell phones. They don't actually lead any of those categories. Or any category. I'll bet they could get the biggest applause at many conventions though. I'll bet if they showed up an insurance industry event, they'd get the biggest applause.
I didn't hear applause, I heard a lot of laughter at the idea that this matters. The interest is mostly from people who are happy with the proprietary toolchains from the involved vendor.
I agree it is a good thing, though. But in a very, very tiny way. cups was important. This is not.
Use of "they" being disallowed by the popular style guides is exactly the point I was making in mentioning style guides. Thank you for taking the time to understand what you're responding too before commenting. You added so very much to the discourse.
Objective-C is very, very, very usable on any *nix platform. If you think it is only useful in Apple proprietary environments, that says a lot about you and nothing about Objective-C.
The only time there is any Apple-specific constraint is when you're using their libraries. That may be most often the case, but there is no reason that it needs to be on your own projects. Serious projects don't just glom onto whatever the nearest proprietary library is, they actually have to evaluate options and make choices. You can absolutely choose non-Apple libraries whenever you want.
A truer statement would have been: "Objective-C is mostly used on 1 platform for entirely social reasons."
And for non-sexists, we just think of it as polite, inclusive communication to attempt to balance any non-inclusive terminology, such as is required in a language like English that lacks gender-neutral pronouns accepted by popular publishing style guides.
Calling it "corpspeak" is as absurd and offensive as claiming it is "political" speech. Only politicians and executives are being polite for political reasons. Everybody else is doing it just to be polite. Polite-speak.
If you're targeting C++/Java developers with a new language, then if you're successful you do indeed get less interest over time from that group. Those who agreed left and joined you; those that stayed will like your offering less than average; the remaining non-converts become less receptive to you over time. This is true even assuming nobody ever changes their opinion; they either liked the new thing when they saw it, or not.
The case where interest "increases" is where they are saying, "awwww, how cute... but don't expect me to use it." They don't hate it, they're willing to talk reasonably about the shortcomings, but they're also probably never go to use it seriously. These people can be persuaded to agree it is less bad after making changes to be more like them, but they're not going to actually switch anyways.
You don't do much better on your technical complaints. Are exceptions a thing that is the same between languages now? No? No. The semantics are often quite different. You can't just assume it works the same in a new language as the old one. It is not predictable based on the naming. You have re-learn and memorize the semantics for every language. Naming a new set of semantics something different, that isn't already overloaded, increases jargon quality within their language, both for new people, and for people who use multiple languages. And it doesn't change the amount you have to learn; the familiar language doesn't mean you can skip parts because you know how it works in another language.
As for user-defined types, that is a specific feature that has advantages and disadvantages either way. There are real reasons to make the choices they did for the niche their language intends to serve. You don't attempt to make any case that their choice is somehow undesirable for that niche.
You really seem to not understand coding practices. Things like DRY, as an old-timer I can say yeah, I don't understand it either. We already had the teaching that code re-use is good. DRY just seems to take the lesson, adopt a pithy cliche phrasing of it, and then throw out the actual lessons and substitute a rule of thumb. Do you always want to avoid repetition? No, only the vast majority of the time. There are times when it is bad. How would a youngster who only grew up with DRY reconcile that? There is no provision in the way it is taught to determine when it is applicable. Easy to remember, sure. But if you can't remember you want to maximize code re-use, cliches aren't going to save you. The only way to use these sorts of modern ideas is to ignore them whenever they don't look useful, which actually means you can ignore them before you start, and just follow traditional best practices instead. Those will lead you to ask how much code re-use you want, and then implement it. Usually that prevent repetition, except where it wasn't desired.;)
If only they had hired a single accountant to actually show up and calculate what they needed, right?
Their defense seems to be that they're a backwards country bumpkin with no economics degrees in government, who have been taken advantage of by these clever Germans who were plotting to... lose billions on unpaid loans. Those clever, clever Germans!
When it comes to credit, because it happened before and the creditor didn't get their money, that doesn't make it the status quo that can be expected. The expected result is actually lowering of credit outside the bottom of the range where loans would even be made at all, and the resulting status quo is that Greece is broke and can't borrow money. And to borrow money now, they have to make short-term payments of past debts, which is hard for them.
The amount of austerity they'd have to agree to in order to get more loans now, well, that is a lot more austerity than they would have had to accept before threatening default.
Trashing your credit is not useful when your financial plan is to run your whole country on borrowed money. If that is your plan, you have to put your credit rating ahead of everything else, because the plan is more expensive than just balancing your budget in the first place.
If Greece is the "weakest" member, and dirt-poor Bulgaria and Romania are doing just find muddling through, and in fact doing much much better than when they joined, then this myth is busted.
There are lots of countries with less who are keeping their heads above water.
This nonsense about the "precedent" that would be set by an exit is absurd. The premise of Eurozone was never that it is inevitable and that countries don't have a choice. That is absurd! If that is your position, then refusing to kick Greece out would set an even worse precedent; that your invented premise had become true!
The premise was actually that if a bunch of countries use a common currency and manage it collectively then the fiscally responsible parties will tend to maintain control, and countries that want responsible management will benefit. Individual countries will be less able to manipulate their currency to screw over their neighbors. Like the whole gimmick of wanting to devalue currency to avoid debt repayment. That is just fraud! If the currency devalues naturally, okay, debtors pay less in real money and can celebrate. But intentionally devaluing currency to avoid debt repayment, that is not something you have some natural right to. That is straight-up screwing your creditors "because you can." So in the Eurozone system, you can't. It is just one less way to screw your neighbors. If Greece ends up getting kicked out, the very positive precedent will be, "these treaties are real, these rules are real, don't borrow what you don't indent to pay if you want to be part of the modern Europe.
The Euro zone treaties made this situate inevitable. They prevent Greece from running a deficit or devaluing their currency in order to subsidize their economy during a down-turn.
This presumes that Greece could not be financially responsible. You consider it so impossible, it isn't even included in your equation.
What makes Greek collapse inevitable is simply their own selves, these irresponsible behaviors you claim are guaranteed when dealing with Greece.
The intent of the Eurozone treaties is to make those behaviors undesirable, so that countries won't do those things. If it is impossible for Greece to comply, it just means it was impossible for Greece to be a long-term Eurozone member. That actually implies those parts of the treaties are functioning as desired. This behavior is not being accepted, and so the system is working.
Slashdot Mirror
These days, they can just build home-grown electric bicycles if they can't afford cars. ;)
I saw an electric bamboo bicycle in China. That is the sort of ride that moralizers with awful credit can build from a kit and maintain themselves.
The ECB should create more money and give it to Greece, as the US gave money to Europe after World War II with the Marshall Plan.
Yeah, that's the ticket, just "create more money" and give it to whoever you think is morally deserving. What could go wrong? Everybody can eat if you just print them a few billion Zimbabwe dollars.
And no. The Marshall Plan was to rebuild after war. Most of it went to the Western Powers. You can't default on generous loans and then whine and cry because nobody trusts you with loans, and compare your bad credit to being bombed in a war. That is just total crap. Come to the US and ask people here about it. They'll look at you like you're crazy, because it is apples and bricks, not even apples and oranges. You really think we're your sugar momma and we're gonna just come over and hand you free money? Get a clue. When was the last time Greece came to the US and gave us a bunch of free money? Never? Never? Really? Not even 1 time?! OK, then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well gosh, I don't see how refusing to "live within your means" will get you living above your means even after your credit rating hits 0 and you can't borrow other people's money.
Moralizing gets you what? It gets you living withing your means, because nobody will loan you anything. ;) Oh, and a crashed economy too. And decades of poverty.
Borrowing everything you can to live outside your means doesn't get you the good life. It increases your poverty. It decreases the "means" that you have to live by.
People think when we say to "live within your means" we're engaging in some sort of moralizing. We're not. It is a physical statement. It is like saying, "eat within what you can get your hands on" or "eat what you can grow or buy or earn or otherwise acquire." Live within your lifespan. Walk within your speed capabilities. Don't bite off more than you can chew. Fly within the flight capabilities of your aircraft. You can't get a free lunch.
Blaming the Germans for your poverty won't put any food on your plate.
There was a documentary showing that EVERYONE knew that Greece didn't meet the qualifications to join the EU, but the expansion drift of the EU of that time didn't care at that time.
If that is what some unnamed "documentary" claimed to show, then we can tell it was just horse shit without even viewing it. I'm guessing that the claims were actually somewhat different, or it was so obviously bad that it isn't worth naming it.
I'll give you hint: Anybody who tells you what "EVERYONE knew" is full of shit.
Why? It's the person who believes the lie, or knows that's it's a lie and uses it for profit that creates the problem. Liars are liars. The profiteers are criminal.
Excellent job paraphrasing the Greek position. However, don't expect the bankers to forgive loans on the basis of, "it's your fault you loaned it to me, you should have known I was lying."
It is a rather funny position. If you attempt some long-term thinking and address the problem without country names, it should be pretty obvious that without the loans they would be poor, and they're guaranteeing increased future poverty by refusing to live within their means. Even if you believe in the moral position, it should be obvious that the bankers won't agree, and won't give handouts on that basis.
Total fail even if you agree with the position! That is some seriously deep fail.
You seem to have that backwards. Dividing your five dollars by zero is like dividing it among zero people and suddenly, poof, it's gone!
Right. Exactly my point, except that I used "pieces" instead of "people." Which is to say, when you're dividing equally between n people, the unit isn't actually the people but the count of people. If you're dividing into labelled jars it is exactly the same, and the jars aren't the units either; the count of portions is. You don't divide by the people, you divide by the count of people. The other person claiming apples/oranges is making the same mistake. And the unit issues shouldn't even come up when the issue is divide-by-zero, which doesn't implicate units at all.
It always cracks me up when people misunderstand me, presume I said something that doesn't make sense, and then correct me by paraphrasing what I actually said but presented as a contradiction.
I guess it is no wonder that people can't map real human scenarios that rely on numbers to mathematics very well; they're already off by -2n most of the time. But you got the essential element; when you divide into zero pieces, it means you have zero pieces when you're done dividing. People will insist such behavior is "undefined," but actually it is defined; either as an error condition, an action that is not allowed (an exception) or as infinity. On a computer this is defined differently for floats (infinity) and ints (exception). The idea that it is undefined is simply ideology run amok, and repeated for decades by school teachers. We have multiple competing definitions right now, for different problem domains. The idea that we "can't" have a sensible default for non-academic situations is pretty silly. Luckily the solution is also easy; don't use numbers directly in code, use objects that represent the units and overload the math operators when using those units so that sensible defaults will present themselves. For example, money classes can return 0. Graphics classes can return 0. Physics-simulation-related classes can return infinity. Still, it would reduce the code complexity in most cases to have the computer defaulting to 0 and having it raise exceptions or return infinity for special academic math types.
I think this shows it was perhaps mistaken of early computer scientists to treat computer numbers as if the job of the computer is purely mathematical. If early programmers had been logicians or philosophers instead of mathematicians, we'd probably have pragmatic real numbers for standard use, and special functions or types for academic math.
Asking what is X divided by zero is no different than asking what is Y plus red, or what is Z times pineapple.
We had five bucks, and we decided to divide it up. After we were done dividing, the money was all gone. That is dividing by zero. It was divided into zero pieces. The inputs are the number of pieces you end up with, and the original value. The size of each piece is the output. So given that you know there are zero pieces in the end, you know that they have zero size, because of algebra.
This is true for almost any example involving money. Programmers who primarily deal with integers and money units find it natural to have anything that doesn't make sense to default to zero. If there was no result, and the units are money, it is accurate to say the result is zero dollars.
The problem is, this doesn't work well for people doing scientific programming, where they expect IEEE standard results, regardless of how much extra error checking this creates. And regardless of the fact that way over 99% of the time where divide by zero is possible, the sanity checks simply detect the zero, and assign the result of zero to some variable without doing the division. Still, they consider this good.
So in the end the answer is to use high level languages, and use money objects with sensible defaults instead of floats and ints for money values.
realistic understanding of the Cult of Ayn Rand
If there ever was an oxymoron....
She pans them heavily in her book Philosophy: Who Needs It?
If nerds didn't desire quality sources of information about what is new in the technology sector, then I would agree it is a joke.
But no, actually it is just pathetic. And the most pathetic thing is, if somebody did a good job at it they would probably get a lot of readers from high value demographics. But it is impossible; editors are apparently compelled by some powerful force to cut corners continuously, even without any information theory analysis of how many corners would be too many. If they ever catch up with economic theory from the `90s, somebody will try a different method. I'll give it another 50 years.
The problem with attempting to assess his competence on slashdot is that people just assume that the goal is "the company makes more money" or "the stock price goes up." But in reality, if they're chasing dollars in a corporate environment the goal isn't to increase the stock price. The goal is often for the stock price to go up and down at convenient times, without (clearly) violating any rules. Other times the goal is more opaque. You can't follow the money, because they have tools to move it around where you can't see it, and much of it moves based on secret contracts with other mega-corps.
So abstract is the modern corporate governance environment, there is just no way to judge his competence or incompetence by the outcomes for the company itself. Even when a company appears to completely fail and go out of business, often the assets were "sold" to a subsidiary and then resold out of the company's control, and it was just a debt-laden shell that failed. From the sidelines the worst possible failure cannot be distinguished from the most magnificent success.
In the old days I hoped MS would fail. These days, they are no threat to anybody. I want the company to succeed because they make good keyboards. And that is a bigger impact on *nix users than anything they do in the software sector these days.
No, actually, having a different conclusion than you says nothing at all about my hearing. You might want to go to pedanticologist and get checked.
I stand by what I said. And your strange attack doesn't even need refutation, because you simply present an opinion as if it somehow disproves my opinion. I don't doubt that your opinion is indeed different than mine.
I don't doubt that their speaker received applause. I find it very odd though, this idea that that tells you anything about anything. If subjective applause gauges were a basis for industry analysis, Apple would have the largest market share in personal computers, mobile computers, personal media players, and cell phones. They don't actually lead any of those categories. Or any category. I'll bet they could get the biggest applause at many conventions though. I'll bet if they showed up an insurance industry event, they'd get the biggest applause.
Sure. You could easily say the same thing. But if you said it in this thread, where the subject is Apple Swift, it might seem a little odd.
I didn't hear applause, I heard a lot of laughter at the idea that this matters. The interest is mostly from people who are happy with the proprietary toolchains from the involved vendor.
I agree it is a good thing, though. But in a very, very tiny way. cups was important. This is not.
Use of "they" being disallowed by the popular style guides is exactly the point I was making in mentioning style guides. Thank you for taking the time to understand what you're responding too before commenting. You added so very much to the discourse.
You must be using beta, if you're going to try to give me introductions kiddo. You joined a couple decades too late for that.
This reminds me of the "Fast, cheap, flexible - choose one"-idiom.
Normally you would be expected to achieve two. Your product must be snake oil!
No need to search in pop culture, just use an English dictionary.
It is a type of swing dance. In context, it means to move in coordination with developers, as if in a dance.
If you can't even use a dictionary, turn in your nerd card.
Objective-C is very, very, very usable on any *nix platform. If you think it is only useful in Apple proprietary environments, that says a lot about you and nothing about Objective-C.
The only time there is any Apple-specific constraint is when you're using their libraries. That may be most often the case, but there is no reason that it needs to be on your own projects. Serious projects don't just glom onto whatever the nearest proprietary library is, they actually have to evaluate options and make choices. You can absolutely choose non-Apple libraries whenever you want.
A truer statement would have been: "Objective-C is mostly used on 1 platform for entirely social reasons."
And for non-sexists, we just think of it as polite, inclusive communication to attempt to balance any non-inclusive terminology, such as is required in a language like English that lacks gender-neutral pronouns accepted by popular publishing style guides.
Calling it "corpspeak" is as absurd and offensive as claiming it is "political" speech. Only politicians and executives are being polite for political reasons. Everybody else is doing it just to be polite. Polite-speak.
If you're targeting C++/Java developers with a new language, then if you're successful you do indeed get less interest over time from that group. Those who agreed left and joined you; those that stayed will like your offering less than average; the remaining non-converts become less receptive to you over time. This is true even assuming nobody ever changes their opinion; they either liked the new thing when they saw it, or not.
The case where interest "increases" is where they are saying, "awwww, how cute... but don't expect me to use it." They don't hate it, they're willing to talk reasonably about the shortcomings, but they're also probably never go to use it seriously. These people can be persuaded to agree it is less bad after making changes to be more like them, but they're not going to actually switch anyways.
You don't do much better on your technical complaints. Are exceptions a thing that is the same between languages now? No? No. The semantics are often quite different. You can't just assume it works the same in a new language as the old one. It is not predictable based on the naming. You have re-learn and memorize the semantics for every language. Naming a new set of semantics something different, that isn't already overloaded, increases jargon quality within their language, both for new people, and for people who use multiple languages. And it doesn't change the amount you have to learn; the familiar language doesn't mean you can skip parts because you know how it works in another language.
As for user-defined types, that is a specific feature that has advantages and disadvantages either way. There are real reasons to make the choices they did for the niche their language intends to serve. You don't attempt to make any case that their choice is somehow undesirable for that niche.
You really seem to not understand coding practices. Things like DRY, as an old-timer I can say yeah, I don't understand it either. We already had the teaching that code re-use is good. DRY just seems to take the lesson, adopt a pithy cliche phrasing of it, and then throw out the actual lessons and substitute a rule of thumb. Do you always want to avoid repetition? No, only the vast majority of the time. There are times when it is bad. How would a youngster who only grew up with DRY reconcile that? There is no provision in the way it is taught to determine when it is applicable. Easy to remember, sure. But if you can't remember you want to maximize code re-use, cliches aren't going to save you. The only way to use these sorts of modern ideas is to ignore them whenever they don't look useful, which actually means you can ignore them before you start, and just follow traditional best practices instead. Those will lead you to ask how much code re-use you want, and then implement it. Usually that prevent repetition, except where it wasn't desired. ;)
With interest. In dollars.
If only they had hired a single accountant to actually show up and calculate what they needed, right?
Their defense seems to be that they're a backwards country bumpkin with no economics degrees in government, who have been taken advantage of by these clever Germans who were plotting to... lose billions on unpaid loans. Those clever, clever Germans!
When it comes to credit, because it happened before and the creditor didn't get their money, that doesn't make it the status quo that can be expected. The expected result is actually lowering of credit outside the bottom of the range where loans would even be made at all, and the resulting status quo is that Greece is broke and can't borrow money. And to borrow money now, they have to make short-term payments of past debts, which is hard for them.
The amount of austerity they'd have to agree to in order to get more loans now, well, that is a lot more austerity than they would have had to accept before threatening default.
Trashing your credit is not useful when your financial plan is to run your whole country on borrowed money. If that is your plan, you have to put your credit rating ahead of everything else, because the plan is more expensive than just balancing your budget in the first place.
If Greece is the "weakest" member, and dirt-poor Bulgaria and Romania are doing just find muddling through, and in fact doing much much better than when they joined, then this myth is busted.
There are lots of countries with less who are keeping their heads above water.
This nonsense about the "precedent" that would be set by an exit is absurd. The premise of Eurozone was never that it is inevitable and that countries don't have a choice. That is absurd! If that is your position, then refusing to kick Greece out would set an even worse precedent; that your invented premise had become true!
The premise was actually that if a bunch of countries use a common currency and manage it collectively then the fiscally responsible parties will tend to maintain control, and countries that want responsible management will benefit. Individual countries will be less able to manipulate their currency to screw over their neighbors. Like the whole gimmick of wanting to devalue currency to avoid debt repayment. That is just fraud! If the currency devalues naturally, okay, debtors pay less in real money and can celebrate. But intentionally devaluing currency to avoid debt repayment, that is not something you have some natural right to. That is straight-up screwing your creditors "because you can." So in the Eurozone system, you can't. It is just one less way to screw your neighbors. If Greece ends up getting kicked out, the very positive precedent will be, "these treaties are real, these rules are real, don't borrow what you don't indent to pay if you want to be part of the modern Europe.
The Euro zone treaties made this situate inevitable. They prevent Greece from running a deficit or devaluing their currency in order to subsidize their economy during a down-turn.
This presumes that Greece could not be financially responsible. You consider it so impossible, it isn't even included in your equation.
What makes Greek collapse inevitable is simply their own selves, these irresponsible behaviors you claim are guaranteed when dealing with Greece.
The intent of the Eurozone treaties is to make those behaviors undesirable, so that countries won't do those things. If it is impossible for Greece to comply, it just means it was impossible for Greece to be a long-term Eurozone member. That actually implies those parts of the treaties are functioning as desired. This behavior is not being accepted, and so the system is working.