Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Swift (Score 1) 337 337

Swift isn't going to make it so "anybody can write apps." That is something that's been tried for decades, with things like drag-and-drop programming. SQL was originally intended for non-programmers. It doesn't work, because the difficulty of programming isn't the syntax. The difficulty of programming is logic.

While true, the danger exists that making the syntax easier will encourage more people who don't understand logic to try to write code anyway, usually with disastrous results. Maybe it's the UNIX greybeard in me, but I've always seen the complexity of language as sort of a "you must be this tall to ride" bar, limiting the amount of damage that clueless people can cause.

And it isn't just that the software that new programmers create is usually bad. It also clogs the marketplace with low-quality apps. The more bad apps people write, the harder it will be for well-written new apps to gain footing, because they'll start out with several times as many poorly written apps ahead of them in their sales ranking.

But the biggest problem with making it easier to write code is that every step down that path requires ever-increasing resources. Right now, it takes about an order of magnitude more effort to write a beginning programming guide than to write a programming guide for experienced programmers, even for a moderately complex technology. And that's if you assume that people understand basic logic, control flow, etc. If you go one step beyond that and try to make it practical for non-programmers to write code, you'll spend two or three years writing a good, solid introductory textbook. And I have yet to see any evidence suggesting that any significant percentage of those folks will be able to write decent code even after reading such a book.

The kernel is stable not just because it has to be, but also because it scares people away until they are reasonably competent at programming. The web is filled with bad code because it doesn't. IMO, apps should be more like the former than the latter. Just my $0.02.

Comment Re:No kidding. (Score 1) 253 253

Neither of those provides any mechanism for downsampling an image before uploading it. In fact, from a same-origin security model perspective, JS code isn't even supposed to be able to access the image data before uploading it, though I think they've left some holes where devs can get around that....

Comment Re:Give specific technical arguments or go away (Score 1) 109 109

You might have a point if his argument was something more nuanced than "it's hard and I don't understand how it will ever work" with a few marketing = boogeyman slams thrown in for good measure.

It was. You mischaracterize the post in question.

Comment Re:Every new technology... (Score 1) 109 109

So because you can't understand it, it must not be of any consequence?

If you're spouting such straw man platitudes, then you don't know enough about quantum computers to condemn someone else. In the defense of the previous poster, I'll note that there are a number of phenomena that permeate all of the Solar System (gravity, neutrinos, and thermal radiation) that may place an upper bound on the reliability of quantum computing no matter how magical your technology is.

Comment Re:There's Very Few Things (Score 1) 80 80

You tell me. I'm not you, I don't know why you do the things you do. I'm not trying to tell you why you did something. I'm just telling you what you did.

Since I didn't do what you are "telling" me I did, and you are now claiming that you didn't imply this either, then there's no point to this thread. We can communicate or we can imagine things of other people. I'd rather communicate.

You tell me.

No, I won't.

Comment Re:Yes! (Score 1) 294 294

I fear it's something ingrained in humanity, so long as we have the capacity to imagine, it seems possible to become deluded in this particular way given the right conditions.

I think it starts with the idea that one knows best usually combined with a ridiculously oversimplified model of how things work.

Comment Re:There's Very Few Things (Score 1) 80 80

Yeah so? Doesn't mean you can't be ALSO predicting a die off. It's not a false dilemma.

Why would I be predicting that? To claim that die-offs are necessary for prosperity is in my view a non sequitur, another sort of fallacy.

China is wealthier and better off than before. Doesn't mean there wasn't a whole lot of dying off on its way here.

Correlation doesn't imply causation. And really, die offs are associated in Chinese history with chaotic periods which don't have prosperity.

Exactly, and I'm saying you have pointed out how there are many people right here on slashdot who show all the signs of walking right into those screw ups, making things a lot worse before they could get better.

That's a lot of vague talk. What are "many people"? What are "screw ups"? And what is "better" versus "lot worse"?

Comment Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money (Score 1) 565 565

And in other nations, it's a faction of what you spend in the USA.

For the OECD, it's 35% (from countries like Mexico and Estonia) to 70% of the US's spending per GDP (France and Netherlands). It's considerably better than the absolute worst, but it's still a big and growing problem.

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.