I for one am relieved that the Internet of Non-things is finally over.

Inane Obscure TLA

OO is, in general, an attempt to abstract-out some of the complexity inherent with developing code.

The often overlooked question is: how frequent is it that OO (and in particular C++) end up increasing complexity.

Is this in the same vein as "Ppl who don't know General Relativity slamming the Speed Of Light"?

The big problem with C++ is that it's complexity makes it unknowable for the vast majority of the population.

On the plus side, it does make producing entries for Code Obfuscation contests rather easy! <smiley />

> What would have been wrong with just creating a compiler which was both a C compiler, and also a compiler for a clean OO language.

Because C++ incrementally evolved from C and was originally bootstrapped as an translator to C (cfront).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

The learning curve is too high simply because the language is too big.

The amazing thing is the high frequency of the word "fucking" in the context of Win 8 discussions. Must be just a coincidence.
 

Well, this is part of the new Linux distro tradition: Take things that works perfectly well (and is easily understood) and abstract the hell out of it until it is no longer so.

You don't sound trollish, just naive. The basis of social engineering is "cast the net wide". This is about individuals, not businesses. 95 out of 100 may avoid the hit, but that says more about luck than savy.

Of course we ran virus scanners, but now they can run for 6 hours straight in prime-time.

Unfortunately virus scanners are mostly scare-tactic marketing to sell software, or in the case of certain large software monopolies, to assuage users that they chose the best OS.

    http://www.computerworld.com/a...

The real problem with them is that virus scanners are of little use against Social-Engineering, which is how we figure the infection got in. An example: user receives an email from known client that contains nothing but the line "click for content!" which is a link to a zero-day exploit. Yes, of course most people do not click. However, occasionally someone will. That's the point of social engineering!

So go ahead, use Windows. But when things inevitably go wrong, you'll just blame "idiot IT policy" or bitchy "users" rather than admitting that it is the weak link in the IT world.

Our company also got hacked. Management sent everyone home, restored from backups. Then we spent a bunch of time figuring out what files were modified in the last 36 hours, and redoing that work over. Note that the hackers target only certain file types, eg. .doc, and .pdf, but not .xls, so were talking mostly about documentation. Unfortunately, our PC's are now limping along because the virus scanner is running all the time now, and so chews up resources.

Our company is Windows-centric for everything except code development (which is Linux using a VM under Windows), and this is a clear example of why Linux is more secure than Windows. Not necessarily inherently, but because Windows desktops are the "mainstream". And hackers target the mainstream!

To wit, I switched to Windows for a year, but subsequently, every search I did to fix Windows problems required putting "Windows" in the search box. This inevitably led to ever more heinously cunning hacker/virus/spyware results which had to be waded through. Try as you might to avoid them, eventually one of them ends up getting you. It ends up being about as much fun as a potato-sack race through a mine-field.

Didn't he invented EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish)?

Just for the record, how much significant software out there does not have C (and/or C++) at it's core.

Even C# has it's core written in C++, apparently. I

.NET is a marketing vessel.

To me, .NET === Resource-Hog

At my place of employment, we implemented a number of .NET apps that were mostly just a wrapper-frontend to our websocket based main app. We can pretty much do the same thing using Chrome, but it was thought this would be easier for our clients to use. Unfortunately, we also run a resource heavy data-generating simulator on the PC along with the app. So we couldn't help notice that when we used the .NET app, the simulator would get starved out. On the other hand, when using a browser, there was no such problem. (BTW: I find this a little ironic as browsers were the original 800lb gorrila.)

So this leads one to wonder if one goal of .NET for MS wasn't to nudge up the number of server licenses, along with licenses for other MS products (IIS,SQL Server, ...)