Most developers will pick neither, if neither offers the functionality they need to deliver cross platform applications.

They'd cooperate because any initiative which cuts down on criminal incidents is probably fine by them.

They just waited 3 days to be absolutely certain before announcing it.

That no-install version of Java is just a JRE and lots of apps bundle up a copy. It just took Mojang / Microsoft an inordinately long time to get around to doing it themselves.

A large part of a language's value is the API and framework it works against. It's no good just throwing out a compiler and a barebones set of APIs and thinking it's going to catch on. Unless Swift comes with a set of high level APIs that allow people to build applications / apps on non-Apple platforms then I don't see what the attraction to it will be.

So I don't buy issues in Fallout being so much a problem with the hardware as with the game running on top. GTA V managed an open sandbox game on top of the same hardware and arguably had a far more dynamic and demanding world than any Fallout / Elder Scrolls game.

That said, I don't see much reason to support the PS3 or 360 since both platforms are in their twilight. I doubt sales would justify the effort of making the games run acceptably or the compromises that come to the game design from doing so.

Thanks, but I understand the "very basics" and I've "learned the language". And no my criticisms don't "quickly disappear". Javascript sucks. The only reason we're talking about it is because it is the lingua franca of web browsers, not because it is any good.

And yet Python, Perl, Ruby, Groovy, Scala and countless other scripting languages manage a better job than Javascript.

Being a "scripting language" is not an excuse. Nor should there be a hard distinction between "scripting language" and "programming language" these days at all.

Classes are an incredibly powerful way to encapsulate functionality. Javascript has never had the proper concept of a class (let alone inheritance) so we have half assed equivalents such as prototypes, bind methods, or function constructors which attach functions to raw object classes. Aside from being half assed, they're inefficient in different ways. Even understanding how the "this" keyword works is a nightmare because unlike sane OO languages, "this" can point at the object, nothing, or something else such as a toplevel window object depending on where it's used from. So it's not uncommon to see code where someone assigns "that" to "this" to work around some issue. Add in other esoteric issues like scoping rules for var and it's just a nightmare.

And of course no JS IDE is remotely as forgiving or useful as it might be because there is no way at compile time to figure out what an object *is* beyond some simple inferences.

This is the reason the likes of Typescript, GWT and other JS generators exist at all. Javascript is treated as the problem to solve. e.g. Typescript extends JS with modules, classes, interfaces, typechecking and so on. The compiler can use those to catch errors at compile time instead of runtime and it can emit functionally equivalent JS. Stuff that allows an IDE to construct an AST and offer refactoring, method signatures and other useful functionality they've enjoyed for years in other languages. It even a specialised function where "this" behaves in a sane way. On the whole, programming Typescript is a lot more pleasant than JS but it's still a thin veneer.

I doubt many people used the things they're deprecating and in some cases it is easy to get the same functionality back. DVD playback - use VLC, and many PCs come preinstalled with a Cyber / Power DVD. Media centre - XBMC. Desktop widgets - metro tiles replace those. Games & essentials - appstore.

Of course it's wrong - from everyone else's viewpoint. A backdoor sounds like a wonderful idea if you're the head of the FBI tasked with catching bad guys and faced with the cost and frustration of extracting useful info from an encrypted device.

I've been developing Android since 1.x and there is a pie chart in the dev console which shows market share. The majority platform always lags behind the cutting edge but it changes over time. New versions of Android start as tiny slices and then grow to be the majority until the next version takes over. It's hardly surprising if a version from a year or so back is dominant. It's always like that.

I don't see it being a big deal though since the general rule of thumb of developing on Android is you choose the API level which supports what you want to do in your app. Most apps don't need proximity payment services or fingerprint reading APIs so they'll use a lower API level and they'll work across any device that supports that level.

There are obvious advantages to what Apple does, but it is a monoculture and there are disadvantages to that too. The biggest one for handset owners is once you're cast into the darkness by Apple you're pretty much screwed. Android devices might not get so many firmware updates but they tend to still get the latest apps from Google and updates for other apps that already work on their platform.

1) Because Anonymous Coward is a moniker on Slashdot that anybody can use 2) this moniker is mine and has been mine for the ~14 years I've used it here. Real name or not, I still have a history of posts that are distinct from other people's posts, a consistency to comments and a reputation to uphold.

I'm not "glossing over" anything. It's a hard problem. It doesn't make the mindless drivel of an AC correct however.

Your dumb arguments could apply right here on earth. After all, how can we possibly live under the water without a breathable atmosphere? Are we we expected to wearing a driving suit all the time? What about the burning the diesel? Blah blah blah. Oh wait someone invented a thing called a submarine and developed the means to heat, pressurize and provide oxygen and fresh water to people living inside of it.

There is nothing to "gloss over" since it is obviously hard. Perhaps it boggles your mind but people tasked to do it would break it down into small manageable problems and would come up with practical solutions and contingencies.

It is likely that any human landing to Mars would make extensive use of robotics, possibly with missions beforehand to prepare a site, drop supplies etc. It is likely it would require water but that a nuclear reactor could produce the O2, distilled water and power for life for humans, plants etc. It's likely that the persons would live in a pressurized structure which could be partially or fully buried to shield it from radiation. It is likely that suits would contain extra shielding and humans would only venture outside when the sun was low in the sky and that there would be covered trenches / walkways to travel between any structures.

Perhaps it's all mind boggling to you. I suggest other people see it as a hard but surmountable challenge.