Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Modula-3 FTW! (Score 1) 304

by TheRaven64 (#48902951) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is Pascal Underrated?
This would be true, except for two things:
  • Lines with more than 66 non-whitespace characters decrease readability.
  • Statements with more than 66 non-whitespace characters are common in most programming languages.

This means that you end up either with lots of continued statements or lots of overly-long lines in Python. If you have the former, then it's hard to see the indentation. If you have the latter, then you can see the indentation but the overall readability suffers. This can be fixed by using tabs for semantic indentation and spaces for alignment and an editor that supports highlighting tabs, but the Python style guides tell you not to do this.

Comment: Re:Modula-3 FTW! (Score 1) 303

by TheRaven64 (#48902941) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is Pascal Underrated?

There are some simple things where C is far more readable to a moderately experienced programmer. Consider the beginning and ending of blocks. In pascal, these are signified by begin and end. When you look at a chunk of Pascal code, they can be hard to pick out because they're just words in a sea of words. In C, you use the { and } symbols. These are symmetrical and the human brain has spent a lot of time evolving to be trivially able to spot symmetry because symmetry normally means 'predator about to try to eat me'. You can very quickly spot a column that has a { at the top and a } somewhere later (much more easily if they're aligned together and there's nothing else on the line). There were some studies done in the '80s that confirmed this, though sadly a lot of C coding conventions specify brace placement in a way that reduces readability.

The main strength of Pascal is that it forces you to think more than C. If you don't write what you mean in Pascal, it usually fails to compile. C will happily do... something. This level of redundant verbosity makes Pascal both quite a frustrating language for experienced developers and a great language for teaching. I find that people who learned Pascal tend to write better C code than those that didn't, but neither group has a strong desire to write Pascal.

Comment: Re:Obligatory reminder that an alternative exists (Score 1) 92

by Carewolf (#48902903) Attached to: OpenSSL 1.0.2 Released

That's at least three sorts of nonsense:

The OS has no magic either, or are you saying that it's random seeds all the way down?



Yes. There is for thing dedicated random number hardware and there is hardware that can produce partially random data, such as network cards and radios, but the latter are only really good when combined with eachother and with a random number tracker, which is something the OS can do.

Comment: Re:libressl-2.1.3 (Score 1) 92

by Carewolf (#48902895) Attached to: OpenSSL 1.0.2 Released

Care to provide any actual statistics for that claim, or are you just one of those annoying morons with a habit of being FUDsy against anything with "Gnu" in the name?

No, I prefer GPL when other choices are equal. GnuTLS has just never had a very good reputation, and even from the most optimistic point of view, it has always been secondary to OpenSSL just by having fewer users and fewer developers. I would be great if it was better, but it has had some unfortunately design choice and a long string of serious vulnerabilities. Just look it up.

Comment: Re:The fuzzy line between hobby and job (Score 1) 175

Your entire elaborate argument is based on a false premise.

As I said, the road damage is exponential with the weight. It is proportional to the axle weight to the fourth power.

Fuel economy is roughly linear with weight, or even less than linear (big rigs get much better MPG per ton than smaller vehicles). Therefore, fuel taxes don't begin to recover the extra costs of heavier vehicles.

Who has made the stupidest argument you've ever heard now? You might look in the mirror.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 175

Whether the insurance companies should be allowed to do that to you is the real root question which we need to answer.

Sure. Why not? Commercial drivers spend a *lot* more time on the road, so they're much more likely to need to call in the insurance. Non-commercial insurance is substantially cheaper.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 175

Why should taxi drivers need commercial licenses either?

Higher standards? Many jursdictions ensure things like ahigher standard of driving, limited working hours, provision of adequate insurance, background checks for certain criminal activity and so on.

I like being able to buy a random electrical device and be reasonably sure because of regulations that it it nulikely to burst into flames. Likewise I like being able to order random taxis with good liklihood that I won't get a criminal, nuinsured, sleep deprived nutter.

Comment: Re:The fuzzy line between hobby and job (Score 2) 175

Your hypotheses that road damage is caused solely by the pressure on the top few millimeters of the road is highly questionable. The Prius is not going to be pounding down through the structure of the concrete nearly as much as your super-duty pickup hauling a huge boat.

I do agree that big rigs should be paying drastically more in fees than they do. However, industry lobbyists will always trump common sense.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 4, Informative) 175

by Rei (#48898643) Attached to: Calif. DMV Back-Pedals On Commercial-Plate Mandate For Ride-Share Drivers

That falls into statistically normal usage. Being a commercial driver absolutely does not. Statistically, a commercial driver drives way more than a noncommercial driver, and they're much more likely to be sued, and for more money. It's absurd to argue that they should be able to drive on insurance rates calculated for statistical norms of noncommercial drivers. If you allow that sort of ignoring of statistics then you might as well get rid of all statistical tables period and charge every last person the same rate for all types of insurance.

Comment: Insurance (Score 4, Insightful) 175

by Rei (#48898577) Attached to: Calif. DMV Back-Pedals On Commercial-Plate Mandate For Ride-Share Drivers

Why, exactly, should Uber drivers get to drive passengers using regular non-commercial drivers' insurance? Commercial insurance costs more because people who drive people around for a living are much more likely to cost the insurance companies more money. If you're letting them drive on non-commercial licenses than that means that regular drivers are subsidizing Uber-drivers.

Comment: Re:Ken Thompson on C++ (Score 2) 148

by serviscope_minor (#48897831) Attached to: Bjarne Stroustrup Awarded 2015 Dahl-Nygaard Prize

Well that just sounds like mean-spirited carping. This for example is demonstrably not true:

And he sort of ran all the standards committees with a whip and a chair. And he said "no" to no one. He put every feature in that language that ever existed.

The committee process is very open and one can see how it works. and it doesn't work like that. And it certainly doesn't have every feature: most proposals get rejected.

Are we running light with overbyte?