Programmers are responsible for the GIMP GUI. Fuck programmer-designed user interfaces.

Programmers designed the pre-Office 2007 GUI. Result? Microsoft fielded a hojilliion support calls with people making feature requests for features that were _already implemented_. But nobody could figure out where they were or how to work them!

Functionality that people can't use and can't discover is absolutely useless. Let's hope for more designers and less developers.

On the one hand, the fact you've posted this a bunch of times to the thread is a surefire sign that you're APK.

On the other hand, the grammar and punctuation are at least vaguely sane. So I have to wonder; APK, have you been medicated?

Yes, because the fact that the current generation of law-makers all smoked dope at university has been instrumental in ending the war on drugs, hasn't it.

If your load average is >1, you have CPU over-subscription....

I might not be a multi-billionaire.

But I also didn't buy Danger for $500M, run it into the ground, and then post a $240M write-off last quarter for KIN.

So I must be doing something right, I guess.

Microsoft may be successful. Microsoft's phone efforts are not.

Not in the least bit. C89's restriction (gone in C99) encourages you to leave uninitialized variables lying all over the place (since you can't always initialize everything correctly at the top of the function), which invites bugs, and, worse, encourages developers to reuse a single variable for multiple purposes, due to the inconvenience of having to go back to the top of the function and the fact that some things like loop indices are necessarily scoped inappropriately. This re-use hurts code clarity a great deal.

Mixed declarations and code are the only thing that make sense.

Java may have a single-rooted hierarchy, but its OO model (static typed, v-table lookups) is _not_ the same as Smalltalk's (dynamic typed, message name lookups (though I think with optional use of selectors? Certainly in Obj-C, so I assume also in Smalltalk). Java's style of OO is the same as C++ and Simula.

They're a confirmed feature in C++0x. g++ and VC2010 both support 'em. Take a look at section 5.1.2 in the current draft spec:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3092.pdf

There's more than one way to skin the OOP cat. Message-passing, like Smalltalk, is not the only way.

Simula, the first OO language, that predates Smalltalk, and predates the term OO, uses a model that's very similar the one used in Java/C++/.NET. To say that C++ is not "object-oriented" is absurd.

Nonsense. C++ has different syntax, semantics, idioms, and libraries to C. I'm a long-time C++ programmer who's recently had to undertake a project that unfortunately requires me to write C89, and it has been quite a struggle to adjust to the new (to me) language. No more mixed declarations and code, barely any type-checking, no more constructors and destructors (let alone methods or inheritance), no more collections classes, no more exceptions, no more lambdas--it requires a totally different approach to software development that is completely unfamiliar to me, and completely inappropriate to C++.

As such an IRC expert, you would know that only IRCops can k-line people, and further, as an undoubted master of IRC, you would know that I am not an IRCop on the Ars Technica server, and never have been. So how precisely would you suggest I k-line anyone?

Like I say, you'd have to ask my girlfriend about it.

But companies running large campaigns don't advertise just to get some clickthroughs, which is why they don't reward clickthroughs. They advertise to raise brand awareness.

I am not avoiding any questions. I answered them all.

Who is talking about dalnet? Why are you banging on about that? You claim that you were talking about the Ars Technica IRC server. What does dalnet have to do with that?

1) Again you are talking about what people are "supposed" to do. According to what?

2) Gays can, and do, sleep with people of the opposite sex to produce offspring. Gay doesn't mean sterile.

3) I have never self-identified as such; you are projecting.

4) Define "normal".