I argue the exact opposite! C++ the programming language leaves way too many decisions to the compiler implementer. A better specified language, such as Java, Ada, Eiffel, etc, doesn't have that problem of different compiler interpretations of the standard.

Bad programmers can produce bad code in any language, including one as well/thoroughly specified as Ada. The difference, though, is that what that code actually does is less subject to interpretation by the compiler.

I've observed that two Ada programmers will argue, "Is this program legal?" If the program is legal, they both -know- what the compiler will do (modulo the rare compiler/optimizer bug, which was usually caught through the stringent compiler validation.)

Two C++ programmers will argue, 'What will my compiler do with this code?"

A better specified language, with fewer holes in its design, wouldn't have these problems between 'language' and 'compiler'.

Who said adding security and utility to current OS would be "free"?

An OS could choose to make these attributes protected, i.e requires 'sufficient privilege' (e.g. root) to change.

The file extension is not "simple and descriptive" for a file type you've never seen before. Hence the existence of sites that translate those TLAs into a description, often overloaded, of what they might mean.

The other problem is that the file extension conflates content and implicit creator/handler. A text file is a text file, there's nothing special about NotePad, SimpleText, EMACS or (shudder) vi as the creator/handler for text files.

The idea of using file name extensions as a means to denote content/application association dates to the 1970s (or even earlier). It's an idea that deserves to die, along with Disco music.

Mac OS 9 and earlier got the OS/file system mechanisms right, with two file attributes. One denoted the contents of the file, and the other denoted the default (usually creating) application.

The challenge for OS designers is how to present this information to the user in some meaningful way. Cryptic text strings at the end of file names aint' it! And the ease by which these can be changed (particularly by malicious programs) are a bug, not a feature. If there's a way to prevent these attributes from being mis-applied/forged, that would be a real accomplishment.

In honor of the WWII 79th Armoured Division, that contained all the special purpose vehicles that were so useful during D-Day and beyond.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

(And without the advantages of being part of the Borg Collective.)
http://venturebeat.com/2015/01...
Pay particular attention to the chart showing -layoffs- across the IT sector!

I'd publish a paper, "C syntax considered harmful" with roughly the same kind of rationale as the "Goto considered harmful" paper.

self.fuck

Short answer: Yes.

And I've also served in the US Army.

I was planning to go see this, not that I'm interested in the movie, but to show that I won't kow-tow to terrorists and extortionists. But since Sony has caved by deferring its release, Sony has joined the ranks of the chicken-droppings.

Several sites have called for Sony to release this on the Internet, and that's what I think they should do. And someone needs to make "we don't negotiate with Young Weasel" stickers with Kim Jong Un's face in the background.

"it is believed" - conspiracy theorists will believe anything that supports their theories.

Last time I checked, I'm not an oil&gas company.

Neither will NSA. You have your Three Letter Agencies mixed up.