Look, any programming tool requiring 50M of virtual memory to run Hello World is just wrong. And don't say peep about memory being cheap and such -- I'm talking wrong on general principle. Morally wrong.

Yes yes, I am being a jerk here. But I do dislike Java. With intensity.

All kidding aside, I think Java as a learning language is not a bad choice. Yeah it makes you sloppy with resources, but it makes you write clean code, which is more important. Much like Pascal, it forces good coding practices on you by making it hard if not impossible to avoid adopting them.

However, I think J2EE, or whatever it's called these days, is pedagogically toxic. It encourages that sort of hazy understanding of how and why your app runs at all... no really, look at them kids deal with problems: by checking every available checkbox and option until behavior changes. And I don't blame them: those Java frameworks are so huge and convoluted it's just impossible to completely understand them, so you end up debugging by trial and error. Or copying and pasting snippets and hoping for the best.

I don't think I'm being biased here, I honestly think that's not a very good way to learn this trade.

Better go for informative; I'm sure a lot of people does that, or something much like it. It wont be healthy for you to be frightened every time.

Look, it's not even malicious... or not necessarily at least. Take me for instance: I don't do it to "get ahead" in a group, I do it because I'm very introverted and geeky and wouldn't fit among my friends and relatives if I didn't do some "cultural shaping" so I don't come through like a fucking alien. Not to mention I really like girls, and when you approach a random cute girl at the coffee shop, chances are she won't be or like introverted and geeky (read: shy).

So what do you do? Sulk, stay lonely? Sure, you can do that. Or, if you're smart and analytical, you can learn to determine what people expect from other people they like, and then adapt yourself so you're closer to the appropriate model (which is different for different circles and environments). And you know what? It's exactly what "naturally" popular people do, only difference is doing it unconsciously vs. deliberately.

As the OP said, the tricky part is not losing your own identity in the process. But if you're smart enough to pull this off, you probably won't need to worry about that either. You'll just let you "be yourself" and go back to the lab and the crypto or AI algorithms or whatever it is that you do for fun, when you don't feel like human company, that's all.

Atheistic logic? What on earth do you mean by that?

Anyway, I would say that trying to prove the existence of a deity with plain logic, meaning by inference within a formal system (you know, consistent, complete, etc.), is bound to fail. Of course, compelling arguments in a less formal framework can and have been made. Personally, I find that just wanking around with rhetoric, but hey, that's just me.

As to the "apparent need of atheists to convert those who do not share their views"... I resent that, just a bit. See I don't really care what people choose to believe in their hearts and their churches, honest, as long as it's kept in there. And by that I mean, away from policy, government, public affairs. But when I see creationists pushing irrationality right into the source of progress, into public education, or when I see politicians appealing to faith to get elected, rather than reason... well, it does scare the bejesus out of me. I see it as a concerted effort to erode rationality, to devolve into obscurantism.

I'm done with dark ages, dude. I really believe we as a species have come a long way since Enlightenment, and I plan on doing whatever is in my power to keep things that way. If that sounds as "zealotry" to you... sigh, we're probably not going to get along well. But I hope at least you can appreciate this not exactly religious zealotry. And do take comfort that my stance against religion is strictly defensive -- and I want to believe that's the stance of many if not most secular/rationalist types. Cheers.

Well the way you put it sounds mean-spirited and controlling... but yeah, I'd say you're reading correctly. Except it's not about "empowering people" and never has been, where ever did you pick up that funny idea? The FSF? Yeah that must be it. Look they're very decent folks but sometimes a bit too idealistic IMO.

Anyway. Writing software for free is about having fun, not helping people. Sure, if you can help people while having fun, hey that's fantastic and probably what makes linux and open source in general so appealing. But coding for Windows is not fun. That's work indeed, all the way. I mean, they actually intend you to pay money for development tools! They don't let you look at the source code for the kernel and libraries! They want you to work with closed boxes and figure out their quirks by trial and error? What kind of joke is that?

Oh, and windows devs are all anonymous, you don't even know who wrote this bit or that.. there's no social status to earn, no cred, no one to blame for the buggy bits. That's boring man.

So no, I don't see a "community" helping microsoft out of this hole. But hey, they've got a lot of cash right? They can pay for that drudge.