Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:You shouldn't. Nobody should. (Score 0) 240

The community is the main reason to avoid the language all together. If the other users that you turn to for help are nothing but a bunch of elitist Mac-using hopster pricks, then that's your cue to stay away from that launage at all costs.

Yeah? Why don't you write about it in your blag?

Comment Re:You shouldn't. Nobody should. (Score 0) 240

When I see people defending PHP, I have the same reaction I get when I see Scientologists defending a religion started by a science fiction author.

The only reason you'd be attacking PHP is so you can hide your own foolish design mistakes. Why don't you tell us what those are? WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES?

Comment Re:You shouldn't. Nobody should. (Score 1) 240

Yes, it's "just as good" as Ruby, Python, or other competing problem-space solutions in a strict Turing-completeness way, but in all pragmatic senses it has been a complete and utter rolling disaster.

Godwin's Law applies just as well to programming language advocacy: If your defense of a language requires pointing out that it's Turing-complete, you lose the argument.

Comment Re:as far as copyright law allows (Score 1) 432

For a massive example of MAD failing, take a look at the patent lawsuits between Apple/Google/Samsung/Nokia etc.

Lawsuits don't necessarily amount to mutually assured destruction for large companies, so it's not a failure of MAD.

It's a case of iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. Usually, companies will cross-license each other's patents, since cooperating is cheaper than suing each other. But if, say, Apple believes the expected damages from an infringement suit against Google (minus the cost in PR and legal expense) outweigh the benefits of peaceful coexistence, then it makes sense (from their perspective) to sue.

Comment Re:They do not have to be hard to read (Score 1) 233

Can you explain why these agreements refer to "express" warranties? It should go without saying that the opposite of "implied" is "expressed", and "express" as an adjective only applies to transit routes, as far as I know.

Seeing lawyers unable to accurately express themselves without garbling a fairly common word doesn't instill confidence in their command of the more esoteric parts.

Comment Re:The Virgin Digital EULA was at least fun to rea (Score 1) 233

"If you ignore this and then come crying to us later, we're just gong to point you back to this agreement -- which you didn't read in the first place. How do I know that? Because nobody ever reads these things. I'm actually writing this for myself. I'm the only one that will ever read this. And the sad thing is that I'll spell-check it anyway."


The possession of a book becomes a substitute for reading it. -- Anthony Burgess