What's the difference?

Mainly, for most customers, PRICE is the only real difference.

It's not support, it's not functionality, it's not even performance (usually), it's about what you pay.

For some customers, there are some unique features that Oracle brings or performance increases they have, but you pay though the nose for it. Usually the people that need these features can afford to buy from Oracle so that's what they do. There is some name recognition that gets your product into some place it wouldn't go otherwise, but that doesn't happen all that much.

Apart from that, it's about money and Oracle fleecing people who could get a database and support cheaper from other vendors using other products..

So... What are you going to do in the YEARS of time this will take and how are you going to come up with the THOUSANDS of dollars this will cost to "protect your good name?"

If you really go to Duke.... I suggest that if you cheated in CS 102 you turn yourself in...

Aside from that, I think you picked the wrong NC school. Stay away from anything blue in that state and pick the red school. (Howl)

It was actually written (some of it) in the late 60's and YES it is still valid and IMHO should be read by anybody involved in doing or managing any kind of engineering effort. My favorite chapter is the one the book's title comes from "The Mythical Man Month" where Brooks explains why it is that adding people to a project makes it take longer and cost more. It's a Classic.

LOL... Well, I DID do the toggle switch thing a few times, but I didn't build the system myself, nor was it vacuum tube based... It had a heck of a lot of 7400 series chips and a huge 5V supply that all came packaged in a box about the size of your fridge....

Shouldn't you be retired by now?

Compilers are just programs.... Bugs happen.

In my nearly 30 years at this, I've only ever had to crack open the compiler/assembler once to track down a bug. Usually these "bugs" are avoided by turning off (or controlling) the automatic optimizations. I would suggest you leave the compiler debugging to the compiler experts because what *you* describe as stupid may actually have a larger purpose behind it. (Full disclosure, yes, I've written assembly code and even had to drop into assembly in the middle of a C Function from time to time.)

I've known programmers who have NEVER seen assembly and wouldn't know a "Jump To Subroutine" instruction from a "Load Program Counter" who I greatly respect. They may not be thinking bits, bytes and how there data is arranged in memory, but they can produce some pretty amazing things anyway. Don't sell somebody short, just because they don't understand something you cut your teeth on. Everybody has their own strengths.

But that's just the point, some don't need to know what's going on underneath.

Look, Just because the programming model (that virtual picture in your head that represents what you are programming) is different between various programming languages, it doesn't mean it doesn't take skill to ply the programming craft. Who cares how to most efficiently sort some array if you depend upon a library to do the sorting for you? Maybe the data doesn't actually exist in the computer memory like you think? Usually a list of data is kept in a database and it get's sorted there. The application programmer doesn't need to be concerned with sorting it and likely shouldn't do such things anyway. The DBA should be doing that, coding the SQL and laying out the tables and indexes.

It's not really changed, even if the details of what we do has... Sure, you are the experienced one who has had to think about all that stuff before, but that doesn't mean the others are less capable.

Read the book.... Not the one the article is about but "The Mythical Man Month" by Fredrick P. Brooks, Jr. Specifically Chapter 16 (and 17 if you are lucky enough to get the 20'th anniversary edition.)

This book is 30 years old and STILL speaks truth about what software engineering really is. The book discussed in the above article is from some newbie who doesn't know computer history and has fallen for the color glossy sales literature from software tool vendors.

But you can wreak a car a LOT faster and easier than a horse.

You are right! Mythical Man Month to the rescue!

There truly is NOTHING new under the sun... Trust me kids, we thought we where hot stuff too, we where just as wrong as this book's author is. Slightly different spin, but Chapter 16 and 17 still apply. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look it up on Google...

Oh please... I'm an old guy who cut his teeth on "C" programs, but your attitude is just wrong.

Tools change, languages change, computers change, methods change, but programming remains the same under all the trappings. Who's a better programmer? One that does Java or one that hacks out Assembly? Neither. Yes the programing model changes and the tokens you use to manipulate this model changes, but I don't care what you code in or how familiar you might be with some past tool I've used, if you program, you use the same skills I used hacking out "C" even if you are using some language I've never heard of.

Fredrick Brooks spoke to this idea way back in the 1970's and rightly concluded that programmers are going to be with us forever. The author of TFA needs to read and understand "The Mythical Man-Month" (2nd Edition) by Fredrick P. Brooks, mainly Chapter 16, but likely the whole book. This book should be REQUIRED READING for ANY computer related undergraduate degree program.

There is NO silver bullet. You will always need and have programmers. It was true 30 years ago and it's true now. We have not automated our way out of needing programers to ply their craft. Yes, we have "automated" a lot of logistics around computer operations, but this has ALWAYS been a low skill job. Back in the day they ran punch card readers and hung data tapes, none of which took too much knowledge of computers or programming. You needed a system programmer to make the system do anything different than what it did before. System programming was a highly skilled task.

The names and languages have changed, but you have "operators" and "system programers" still today. We call them Administrators and Programmers today. One operates the machines, loads software, manages backups and keeps paper in the printers, the other comes up with programs and systems that do new and unique things. The latter still requires the unique programming skills.

This author is wrong, and would have known had they done their reading.

IMHO, Vegan is fringe.. But I do live in the BBQ capital of the world. I would guess that I've only known ONE person who even approached Vegan, and even she found it very difficult to make it work for long periods and had to consume some non-vegan supplements to get by. Last I heard she gave the full Vegan idea up, it's just not natural for humans to eat that way. I found the whole thing STUPID, but hey, more meat for me so knock yourself out.

Moral/Ethical behavior is USUALLY legal. However, the converse is not true. Many things are "legal" but are neither moral or ethical.

If that's what society finds to be a "normal"diet then you get what you get. Look, it is at "cruel and unusual punishment" where we draw the line. In the USA, such a diet would clearly NOT be normal so I think "unusual" would apply to your hypothetical situation. Vegan is NOT normal, in fact, some would consider it fringe. It is NOT normal diet and therefore prisons are NOT required to accommodate it. Your moral objections not withstanding.

Funny that people would make this a "moral" argument, when prison is reserved for those who lack enough moral constraints to keep from violating the law.... But I digress..

So if I have a "moral" belief that says I can only eat PRIME beef in proportion with Lobster and an expensive vintage wine, cooked in a specific way and accompanied by a rotating set of side dishes, the prison system is now required to provide for my "morally" dictated diet? Of course not.

What the prison system is required to provide is basic food. If that does not meet your "moral" requirements then don't eat. or eat as your choose. This "normal" diet is not cruel or unusual punishment. If the prison system chooses to provide more than that, it is up to them, but those who break the law, get what they get and I'm tired of all the complaining about it being unfair or wrong.

I wan to remind folks that prisons have come a long way. It wasn't that long ago being in prison meant you starved and spent your time in hard labor. Prisons where seen as punishment. In may places in the world they still are this way. In some ways we've made prison too cushy if you ask me.

So, if you are sent to prison (or jail) I suggest you not expect your vegan diet choice to be accommodated, just like mine won't be either. Learn to live with eating what you can, or if it means enough to you, starve yourself to death for your morals. I'm all for you exercising your morals, I just wish you had a bit more moral clarity on your activities that got you in trouble in the first place...