Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Or just practicing for an actual job (Score 1) 320

Just out of curiosity are there any professional programmers out there who don't regularly copy functions from the Internet?

The whole point of the course is to try & figure out how data structures and algorithms are implemented. It's as much about problem solving as it is coding. Sure, you could always just use std::vector in your C++ programs for vectors, but do you really understand how they work? What about binary trees and linked lists? That's the type of stuff they're teaching in these classes. Copying code & modifying it for your own purposes is fine for production, but if these students don't understand how the underlying code works, then their chances of successfully using it greatly diminishes.

And to extend what you're saying, ultimately professional programmers *do* have to design novel data structures and the algorithms to manage them. How are you going to build a thread-safe incrementally updating cross-reference table when you don't even know to implement a linked list?

Comment Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... (Score 2) 698

To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be satisfied that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, firearms certificates are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm.

Not even remotely similar to anything proposed in the US as common sense.

In the US, protection from the state itself is a valid reason to own a firearm. The founders believed that the government must always be afraid of the people, not the other way around, and the second amendment was seen (rightly or wrongly) as a means of securing this.

Comment Re:Sounds like what Sun did (Score 1) 525

The codebase has been sitting behind a proprietary wall for so long that it's been completely insulated from the real world of code quality

The wall's not that high: Reflector and ILSpy have been around for a long time, and non-obfuscated .NET code decompiles pretty cleanly.

The real world expects quality code on par with the BSD kernel.

(1) Most all production code is crappy, especially application code. (2) Systems/kernel code is generally high-quality because it has to be. (3) From what I've seen, the .NET API's are pretty decent... both on the outside (with excellent usablity*) and on the inside (with mostly straightforward code**). (4) I haven't seen the .NET run-time code, but Microsoft undoubtedly invested some of their best systems developers in designing the CLR. I'd be surprised if it stank bad enough to drive folks to Java.

* Excepting the huge learning curve with some API's, like WCF and WPF. ** An exception would be the configuration system, which is painful in many ways.

Comment Re:Why feed the lawyers? (Score 2) 268

Huh? What does that have to do with anything? Was GNOME marketing Lowes POS system under the name GNOME? No. Someone just happened to use the GNOME desktop manager to make a POS system (not called GNOME).

For all we know, Lowe's (or a software vendor contracted by Lowes) may have marketed (or may choose in the future to market) their POS to other parties as a GNOME-based product. It wouldn't be the product name, but it could be trumpeted in the feature listing. For that matter, the GNOME project may reasonably identify an opportunity to produce a POS-specific version of their product and want to call it "GNOME-POS" or something.

The Lowe's example definitely shows the overlapping and competing uses of the name: your average moron in a hurry isn't going to know the difference between a POS named "Gnome" and a Desktop Environment called "GNOME" that can be used to construct POS systems.

Boss: "Should we buy Gnome for our POS?"

Employee: "No, we should use GNOME for our POS."

Boss: "WTF??"

Comment Re:Guns aren't needed for a revolution (Score 1) 184

Guns aren't required for a revolution to occur.

See also 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action (from the book From Dictatorship to Democracy, available here).

Certainly you can have a revolution with guns but the notion that your little peashooter is what is keeping the most powerful military on the planet in check is pretty much laughable.

Don't underestimate the value of possessing threat capability, even if you're not going to use it. Would Gandhi, King, and Mandela have been equally successful in a society without the simmering potential for all-out race war?

Slashdot Top Deals

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...