Disagree - don't want Trump, but Hillary with a strong republican congress might repeat the Bill Clinton era. Hillary with a strong democrat congress is going to railroad a lot of garbage through... the best years have traditionally been with opposing parties in the legislative and executive branches.
I've used PERL for a variety of things, including my first CGI scripting, but switching to PHP was like night and day, and my website development took a fraction of the time - a very small fraction, like 1/3 to 1/5 the time, maybe even less. PHP was just designed for it, and PERL wasn't. PERL is great at text document processing, that's what it was made for - now people have shoehorned in a variety of things that it's capable of doing, and that's great, but it hardly makes it the best tool for most things. Even for system scripting, Python is a lot easier for me.
I don't care if it makes people cringe (see a few posts above), but the right too for the right job doesn't mean a specific language, it means if you have a broader knowledge of languages, you pick the one that works best for you to solve a certain task. I mention this because you mention PHP, and it has gotten a really bad reputation. I get why some people don't like it, and I moved on to Python/Django for web stuff, but when I switched from PERL (and also using Tomcat/JSP) to PHP, it was night and day - and I did what I had to do in probably less than half the time, and I never really got that proficient at it, either.
It's an interesting discussion because you obviously have people that have been working in the same kind of programming domains for years, while a good number of us switch to completely different projects. For me it's everything from simple scripts to scrape data from somewhere, simple cron jobs, small end user applications, web services, and plugins for several different systems that require different scripting languages or APIs (the latest is.Net, which allows me to choose from a variety of languages - something that MS has actually done right and deserves some props for).
... Classic Basic (Yes, some solutions are out there using that still),...
Laughing because I am right now rewriting a GW-Basic program I wrote for my dad, originally in 1985, updated a couple of times in the 80s. He's been using it ever since in his accounting practice, jumping through hoops to keep it running. I'm finally rewriting it in.Net so that it can use Windows printing on Windows versions later than XP. But, in other words, if anyone thinks that statement is wrong, I promise you it's not!
I disagree - you can pretty much do anything with any general purpose programming language, that part is certainly true - but some things are vastly simpler to do using the "right tool for the right job." Only masochists would use Fortran or COBOL for writing a web service, and if you're talking about manipulating copious amounts of textual data, a scripting language like PERL will be a lot easier than C. Of course, if you're writing system scripts, you're not going to want to do it in COBOL. So cringe away - but there certainly are "right tools for the right job." I'm not implying only one language is good as solving problems in any particular domain, but that some languages are simply not suitable (in that it's a lot more work, and a lot more prone to problems) for certain domains of problems.
I agree - I think the best money comes from being a master of something, rather than a jack-of-all-trades programmer, but at the same time I think my job is a lot more interesting because I don't have to work on the same project forever. I go from web development (python with django) to simple user applications (python with pyqt) to plugins to our graphics software (whatever.Net, which is actually something really nice about MS development), to custom scripting languages for other graphics software. I came out of college with a strong C programming skill, while teaching myself C++ (C++ and object oriented programming were not yet being taught at my school), and I went through a number of languages (both scripting and compiled) before settling on my current, rather small, set of languages. One thing is it never gets boring around here.
I agree... I used PERL for a while for some cron jobs; I encountered an engineer who was going to take over that project and when we discussed it, he whined that all PERL is unreadable garbage.... until he saw my scripts, which were well commented and didn't do obscure things just because I could. I now largely write in Python - both using Django and with PyQt for end user applications. I'm not saying I'm god's gift to programming, but I separate out my classes logically, and while I might use the occasional list comprehension, the code is, IMO, very readable. If I were writing for an outside audience I'd have stuck with C++, but since it's all internal to my company, I'm a lot faster with Python. I do need to write some.Net stuff occasionally (because of software APIs that I'm using). I guess the real answer is "it depends on what I'm doing." I'm fortunate (again, IMO), to have a wide variety of job responsibilities (some of them not even programming). It keeps things interesting.
I highly doubt that. Like most people who hate cops because of the bad press a few out of the millions of them get, or think that all catholic priests are pedophiles. Perception is skewed by media; when most people get laid off it's not a horror story - but when it IS a horror story, it's all over social media (and sometimes mainstream media).
I disagree... I think perception is skewed because we generally only hear about the horror stories; I don't really think it's the "norm," even if it's too common.
You hear horror stories about that, but it's not really the norm. There really still are some good companies out there. If you're having a terrible time at a company, and leaving it because you can't stand working there, then I don't see the problem with burning that bridge, but if you're leaving a job you like for a better job opportunity, then it's really stupid to not give notice. I've seen my company walk fired employees out the door for some major impropriety, and I've seen the all-too-frequent rounds of layoffs where people get at least two weeks notice, some a lot more - some kept on to finish projects that might take many months, as well as super generous severance. Why don't people sabotage those projects? Because they are getting great severance pay at the end, and lots of time to find a new job. I'm not going to burn that bridge.
Good point about PTO... I've earned enough vacation time this year (only one day off so far - I usually have most of December off because it's use it or lose it) that I could give two weeks notice and just take the last two as vacation time.
Unless you've done something that justifies immediate dismissal, the company I work for generally gives you notice that you're being laid off ahead of time, and also offers a generous severance to everyone (not just executives). If they had a habit of just kicking people out without warning, I wouldn't feel obliged to give two weeks notice. If the company treats you like crap, though, I don't see where it's written into any contracts that two weeks is required, so too bad.
I have seen cases where people were asked to leave immediately - even escorted out of the building, but then I don't necessarily know the circumstances of their dismissal. In all cases where I know there was no impropriety, work continued for those people laid off for sometimes a month or more (and then severance after that). I guess the point of what I'm saying is that some employers don't deserve the respect of being given notice, but some employers are really quite good about how they handle their employees, and it behooves the person leaving to not "burn bridges," as the TFA mentions.
Of course you are, unless you're doing something very wrong. I put nearly 20k miles on my car every year - it's 12 years old and north of 200k miles. I've put about $3500 into non-routine maintenance in the second six years. My insurance is lower because I don't need comprehensive coverage anymore, I've saved at least $800 in ad-valorem taxes in the second six years (probably a lot more, it depends on how the state values your car). The amount I've lost due to depreciation over the second six years is a fraction of what it was over the first six years. You're really reaching, here, to claim it's only 10%... and that you include things like tolls and parking and other things that you have either way, at the same cost, is disingenuous - about the only thing you could fairly include is if the newer car got better gas mileage.
Agreed... I wouldn't vote for either one. The summary sounds like "well, she didn't mean to do it, so shouldn't be prosecuted" would never apply to anyone else - it's completely disgusting. Welcome to modern America; our founders are turning in their graves.
And how is that a bad thing? The way I see it, someone convicted of manslaughter didn't "mean" to do it. They aren't pressing charges because.... Clinton didn't intend to violate the law? Yes, we're back to the oligarchy of the selected ones for whom the law doesn't apply.
No, not even with 0%... you're still buying a vehicle that you don't need if you have a well running older car. Even at 0%, I'd rather keep my $25k (or more, but that's about what I'm looking at on my next car). What people (not you) are suggesting is it's somehow cheaper to buy a car twice as often.... no, not even with 0%.
OK, stop with the car payments - if you buy outright a $30k vehicle every six years compared to every 12 (if you've picked a decent vehicle and maintained it), you're NOT saving money. Yes, at some point it does not become worth it to pay for major repairs on an old car, but for some reason I've never had, with 10+ year old cars, things like transmission problems (the single biggest, most common, major repair). The only car I've ever had that didn't make it to ten years was a Ford, and I'll never buy one again (despite the fact that was 30 years ago and cars are completely different now - certain Japanese brands are still more reliable, despite gains made by American brands - and yet my Hondas were assembled in the U.S. while a lot of American cars are assembled elsewhere).
In fact, if you're speaking strictly financially, unless your repairs over the second six years are going to total more than the price of a new car, you're still ahead keeping your older car longer. I know the rule of thumb is to not pay more than the car is worth for repairs, but ignores the important fact that the alternative is to buy another car, which is likely a lot more than the cost of the repair... that makes it worth it to ME. Again - we're speaking strictly financially. While my 12 year old Hondas have needed non-routine repairs, they've never stranded me or made me miss work. Why would I want to spend $25k to $30k for a new car in that case? My insurance is low (required only, no comprehensive because it doesn't make sense), my ad valorem taxes are about 1/4 of what they would be for a new car... how on earth could it possibly make sense to trade in a perfectly working vehicle?
My Honda was built in East Liberty, Ohio. If you bought a Ford or Chevy, there's a damn good chance it was assembled in Mexico. It's not so simple comparing foreign and American cars anymore. Besides, there's an enormous market for automobile parts out there, I really doubt it's a worthwhile concern. Even accessories - I refuse to pay for dealer installed accessories. There's a huge aftermarket, even OEM parts.
I always bought used until I got married. Then it was "happy wife, happy life, " right? Wife demanded new cars. More like "happy wife, in debt for life."
Sure... taking on new car payments becomes the primary concern. I'd rather pay $1000/year on maintenance (averaging in non-routine maintenance) than $4k year or more for some new bells and whistles that get me nothing except debt. You keep ignoring the fact that the difference is that when you sell your car after six years, for the next five (the average) YOU will have a car payment that I will NOT.
On American brands, maybe. The post makes no sense. I bought a '93 Honda Civic in '98, and kept it until it was 13 years old and never had that kind of trouble with it - the worst that happened was the A/C went out, it was an older unit that couldn't just be recharged without paying a lot of environmental impact fees for the coolant, or even more to have a new one put in. In retrospect, I should have paid for a new A/C. Regardless, replaced it with another Honda that I've now had for over 12 years. Yes, I've paid maybe $3500 in the past five years on non-regular maintenance.... but that's less than a year's worth of payments on a new car, and it looks and runs great - why on earth would I willingly take on a new car payment obligation? I'm sure it'll get to the point where it's not worth a major repair - but anyone that can't make a car last 10+ years is doing something wrong - either stupidly picking the wrong brands, or not doing even lackadaisical maintenance. Do people not get the math? $3k is still less than a typical year's worth of car payments. If you're doing that every year, then fine, but then you've probably done a really crappy job of buying and maintaining the car.
I feel this way, too. Got my car in '05; over 200k miles; had a couple of repairs that cost me some, but not nearly as much as new car payments would have cost me over the same time. Now it's been running great - and because I actually take care of it, it looks better than most cars half it's age. KBB says it's only worth like $1500 - but if a new car payment is $300 to $400 or more, it's worth a heck of a lot more to me to not get rid of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Disagree - don't want Trump, but Hillary with a strong republican congress might repeat the Bill Clinton era. Hillary with a strong democrat congress is going to railroad a lot of garbage through... the best years have traditionally been with opposing parties in the legislative and executive branches.
I've used PERL for a variety of things, including my first CGI scripting, but switching to PHP was like night and day, and my website development took a fraction of the time - a very small fraction, like 1/3 to 1/5 the time, maybe even less. PHP was just designed for it, and PERL wasn't. PERL is great at text document processing, that's what it was made for - now people have shoehorned in a variety of things that it's capable of doing, and that's great, but it hardly makes it the best tool for most things. Even for system scripting, Python is a lot easier for me.
I don't care if it makes people cringe (see a few posts above), but the right too for the right job doesn't mean a specific language, it means if you have a broader knowledge of languages, you pick the one that works best for you to solve a certain task. I mention this because you mention PHP, and it has gotten a really bad reputation. I get why some people don't like it, and I moved on to Python/Django for web stuff, but when I switched from PERL (and also using Tomcat/JSP) to PHP, it was night and day - and I did what I had to do in probably less than half the time, and I never really got that proficient at it, either.
It's an interesting discussion because you obviously have people that have been working in the same kind of programming domains for years, while a good number of us switch to completely different projects. For me it's everything from simple scripts to scrape data from somewhere, simple cron jobs, small end user applications, web services, and plugins for several different systems that require different scripting languages or APIs (the latest is .Net, which allows me to choose from a variety of languages - something that MS has actually done right and deserves some props for).
... Classic Basic (Yes, some solutions are out there using that still), ...
Laughing because I am right now rewriting a GW-Basic program I wrote for my dad, originally in 1985, updated a couple of times in the 80s. He's been using it ever since in his accounting practice, jumping through hoops to keep it running. I'm finally rewriting it in .Net so that it can use Windows printing on Windows versions later than XP. But, in other words, if anyone thinks that statement is wrong, I promise you it's not!
I disagree - you can pretty much do anything with any general purpose programming language, that part is certainly true - but some things are vastly simpler to do using the "right tool for the right job." Only masochists would use Fortran or COBOL for writing a web service, and if you're talking about manipulating copious amounts of textual data, a scripting language like PERL will be a lot easier than C. Of course, if you're writing system scripts, you're not going to want to do it in COBOL. So cringe away - but there certainly are "right tools for the right job." I'm not implying only one language is good as solving problems in any particular domain, but that some languages are simply not suitable (in that it's a lot more work, and a lot more prone to problems) for certain domains of problems.
I agree - I think the best money comes from being a master of something, rather than a jack-of-all-trades programmer, but at the same time I think my job is a lot more interesting because I don't have to work on the same project forever. I go from web development (python with django) to simple user applications (python with pyqt) to plugins to our graphics software (whatever .Net, which is actually something really nice about MS development), to custom scripting languages for other graphics software. I came out of college with a strong C programming skill, while teaching myself C++ (C++ and object oriented programming were not yet being taught at my school), and I went through a number of languages (both scripting and compiled) before settling on my current, rather small, set of languages. One thing is it never gets boring around here.
I agree... I used PERL for a while for some cron jobs; I encountered an engineer who was going to take over that project and when we discussed it, he whined that all PERL is unreadable garbage.... until he saw my scripts, which were well commented and didn't do obscure things just because I could. I now largely write in Python - both using Django and with PyQt for end user applications. I'm not saying I'm god's gift to programming, but I separate out my classes logically, and while I might use the occasional list comprehension, the code is, IMO, very readable. If I were writing for an outside audience I'd have stuck with C++, but since it's all internal to my company, I'm a lot faster with Python. I do need to write some .Net stuff occasionally (because of software APIs that I'm using). I guess the real answer is "it depends on what I'm doing." I'm fortunate (again, IMO), to have a wide variety of job responsibilities (some of them not even programming). It keeps things interesting.
I highly doubt that. Like most people who hate cops because of the bad press a few out of the millions of them get, or think that all catholic priests are pedophiles. Perception is skewed by media; when most people get laid off it's not a horror story - but when it IS a horror story, it's all over social media (and sometimes mainstream media).
I disagree... I think perception is skewed because we generally only hear about the horror stories; I don't really think it's the "norm," even if it's too common.
You hear horror stories about that, but it's not really the norm. There really still are some good companies out there. If you're having a terrible time at a company, and leaving it because you can't stand working there, then I don't see the problem with burning that bridge, but if you're leaving a job you like for a better job opportunity, then it's really stupid to not give notice. I've seen my company walk fired employees out the door for some major impropriety, and I've seen the all-too-frequent rounds of layoffs where people get at least two weeks notice, some a lot more - some kept on to finish projects that might take many months, as well as super generous severance. Why don't people sabotage those projects? Because they are getting great severance pay at the end, and lots of time to find a new job. I'm not going to burn that bridge.
Good point about PTO... I've earned enough vacation time this year (only one day off so far - I usually have most of December off because it's use it or lose it) that I could give two weeks notice and just take the last two as vacation time.
Unless you've done something that justifies immediate dismissal, the company I work for generally gives you notice that you're being laid off ahead of time, and also offers a generous severance to everyone (not just executives). If they had a habit of just kicking people out without warning, I wouldn't feel obliged to give two weeks notice. If the company treats you like crap, though, I don't see where it's written into any contracts that two weeks is required, so too bad.
I have seen cases where people were asked to leave immediately - even escorted out of the building, but then I don't necessarily know the circumstances of their dismissal. In all cases where I know there was no impropriety, work continued for those people laid off for sometimes a month or more (and then severance after that). I guess the point of what I'm saying is that some employers don't deserve the respect of being given notice, but some employers are really quite good about how they handle their employees, and it behooves the person leaving to not "burn bridges," as the TFA mentions.
Without you, I'd end up buying unfixed crap like this! And at full price, too!
Of course you are, unless you're doing something very wrong. I put nearly 20k miles on my car every year - it's 12 years old and north of 200k miles. I've put about $3500 into non-routine maintenance in the second six years. My insurance is lower because I don't need comprehensive coverage anymore, I've saved at least $800 in ad-valorem taxes in the second six years (probably a lot more, it depends on how the state values your car). The amount I've lost due to depreciation over the second six years is a fraction of what it was over the first six years. You're really reaching, here, to claim it's only 10%... and that you include things like tolls and parking and other things that you have either way, at the same cost, is disingenuous - about the only thing you could fairly include is if the newer car got better gas mileage.
Agreed... I wouldn't vote for either one. The summary sounds like "well, she didn't mean to do it, so shouldn't be prosecuted" would never apply to anyone else - it's completely disgusting. Welcome to modern America; our founders are turning in their graves.
And how is that a bad thing? The way I see it, someone convicted of manslaughter didn't "mean" to do it. They aren't pressing charges because.... Clinton didn't intend to violate the law? Yes, we're back to the oligarchy of the selected ones for whom the law doesn't apply.
Even buying outright it doesn't make financial sense to buy a cars twice as often; I really don't understand how you can suggest otherwise.
No, not even with 0%... you're still buying a vehicle that you don't need if you have a well running older car. Even at 0%, I'd rather keep my $25k (or more, but that's about what I'm looking at on my next car). What people (not you) are suggesting is it's somehow cheaper to buy a car twice as often.... no, not even with 0%.
OK, stop with the car payments - if you buy outright a $30k vehicle every six years compared to every 12 (if you've picked a decent vehicle and maintained it), you're NOT saving money. Yes, at some point it does not become worth it to pay for major repairs on an old car, but for some reason I've never had, with 10+ year old cars, things like transmission problems (the single biggest, most common, major repair). The only car I've ever had that didn't make it to ten years was a Ford, and I'll never buy one again (despite the fact that was 30 years ago and cars are completely different now - certain Japanese brands are still more reliable, despite gains made by American brands - and yet my Hondas were assembled in the U.S. while a lot of American cars are assembled elsewhere).
In fact, if you're speaking strictly financially, unless your repairs over the second six years are going to total more than the price of a new car, you're still ahead keeping your older car longer. I know the rule of thumb is to not pay more than the car is worth for repairs, but ignores the important fact that the alternative is to buy another car, which is likely a lot more than the cost of the repair... that makes it worth it to ME. Again - we're speaking strictly financially. While my 12 year old Hondas have needed non-routine repairs, they've never stranded me or made me miss work. Why would I want to spend $25k to $30k for a new car in that case? My insurance is low (required only, no comprehensive because it doesn't make sense), my ad valorem taxes are about 1/4 of what they would be for a new car... how on earth could it possibly make sense to trade in a perfectly working vehicle?
My Honda was built in East Liberty, Ohio. If you bought a Ford or Chevy, there's a damn good chance it was assembled in Mexico. It's not so simple comparing foreign and American cars anymore. Besides, there's an enormous market for automobile parts out there, I really doubt it's a worthwhile concern. Even accessories - I refuse to pay for dealer installed accessories. There's a huge aftermarket, even OEM parts.
Sadly, that's +1 insightful, not +1 funny.
I always bought used until I got married. Then it was "happy wife, happy life, " right? Wife demanded new cars. More like "happy wife, in debt for life."
Sure... taking on new car payments becomes the primary concern. I'd rather pay $1000/year on maintenance (averaging in non-routine maintenance) than $4k year or more for some new bells and whistles that get me nothing except debt. You keep ignoring the fact that the difference is that when you sell your car after six years, for the next five (the average) YOU will have a car payment that I will NOT.
On American brands, maybe. The post makes no sense. I bought a '93 Honda Civic in '98, and kept it until it was 13 years old and never had that kind of trouble with it - the worst that happened was the A/C went out, it was an older unit that couldn't just be recharged without paying a lot of environmental impact fees for the coolant, or even more to have a new one put in. In retrospect, I should have paid for a new A/C. Regardless, replaced it with another Honda that I've now had for over 12 years. Yes, I've paid maybe $3500 in the past five years on non-regular maintenance.... but that's less than a year's worth of payments on a new car, and it looks and runs great - why on earth would I willingly take on a new car payment obligation? I'm sure it'll get to the point where it's not worth a major repair - but anyone that can't make a car last 10+ years is doing something wrong - either stupidly picking the wrong brands, or not doing even lackadaisical maintenance. Do people not get the math? $3k is still less than a typical year's worth of car payments. If you're doing that every year, then fine, but then you've probably done a really crappy job of buying and maintaining the car.
I feel this way, too. Got my car in '05; over 200k miles; had a couple of repairs that cost me some, but not nearly as much as new car payments would have cost me over the same time. Now it's been running great - and because I actually take care of it, it looks better than most cars half it's age. KBB says it's only worth like $1500 - but if a new car payment is $300 to $400 or more, it's worth a heck of a lot more to me to not get rid of it.