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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:J. J. Abrahms needs to stop making movies (Score 1) 504 504

Abrahms has a penchant for time travel? How many Star Trek movies, entire series and specific episodes hinge on time travel? Only transporter/replicator/holodeck accidents post ToS come nearly as close to being an overused plot device. Star Trek in general has a time travel problem. I've been around since '75. Plenty of sci-fi and Trek under my belt. And don't get me wrong. I love Dr. Who. But if you're going to use time travel that often, it needs to be about time travel and not an inability to find writers who can't bring a plot to resolution without emitting super-particles at the problem or making the conflict about time travel.

And don't forget. Much of the original cast was 90210 back in the day. How much trouble does Kirk get in over women? How often is there a perfectly sensible solution to a problem that he turns around and tackles less efficiently with pure bravado? How often does a major conflict start with a crew member getting seduced? It was a pretty steamy show for the time.

Comment Re:J. J. Abrahms needs to stop making movies (Score 1) 504 504

I've only run into Abrahms Star Trek haters on SlashDot. You guys are like ultra-nerds. Normally I would mean that as a compliment. Those were damned good movies in spite of kicking things off with time travel (a Trek kludge new writers seriously need to consider avoiding). In spite of this, they were fun to watch and I fail to see how they were such a horrendous departure from the spirit of the original movies. He even managed to update the styles of the series while maintaining a connection to the original look. Kirk's still Kirk. Spock's a slightly less emotionally neutered version out of the gate but still provides the grounding influence Kirk needs. Bones is amazing and his first appearance almost had me pissing myself laughing. Scottie's great. And they still don't know what to do with the Asian character other than give him an occasional fight scene by way of apology. What's changed, really?

I mean cripes, he even went so far as to branch off his own parallel universe where so we can imagine the unaltered events of the original series still play out somewhere.

Comment Re:Shouldn't be dogfighting anyway (Score 1) 843 843

Well I'm no aeronautics engineer... but then I'm guessing you aren't either so whether it is or isn't easy would be pure speculation. But what the heck. I imagine they decide on the airframe first and then see what they can fit in it second. Then when they can't, it's redesign on the entire airframe and start all over again with seeing how much they can cram into the thing.

Comment Re:if dogfighting in 2015, you've already lost (Score 1) 843 843

It's an argument that's been made before but didn't pan out in actual combat. Planes can only carry so many missiles. When it comes to the weight tradeoff, there's an awful lot you can do with a missile system's worth of gun. Things may have changed since IIRC, the 70s but I wouldn't be so sure they've changed enough. Missiles and stealth can potentially be countered and completely nullified. Line of sight weaponry, however less effective can't.

Comment Re:Classification an Interesting Issue (Score 1) 144 144

Yes but without Everquest and WoW there'd never be us well-dressed plain-speaking SWTOR-folk who just want to see milk delivered via refrigerated trucks driven by polite well-spoken fellas who all vote Republican once again. Also Star Wars gunslingers are suh-weet!

Comment Re: That's not all (Score 1) 336 336

Strange. I get paid a lot more than I used to yet my primary responsibility is still writing code, which I enjoy doing. If you don't enjoy it, for the love of sanity, don't be a programmer with dreams of "moving up." That would be stupid because you'd resent the hours you weren't getting paid to learn new stuff all the time and you might end up looking down on people you never understood, and who you, man or woman, never had any appreciation for.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 260 260

You're assuming they're smart and reasonable. They are a large organization. They have smart and reasonable people here and there I'm sure but as an entity they are no longer either of those. The people calling the shots want their problems solved. They don't care about getting them solved well. They just want their to-do items crossed off.

Comment Re:Crockford's JavaScript: The Good Parts (Score 1) 293 293

Crockford's role isn't to teach people how to write better JS. It's to makes Java devs feel better about struggling with the fact that JS is similar to Java in terms of syntax but very different in terms of design, which is something they struggle with because they never understood Java in terms of its design in the first place nine times out of ten.

Comment Re:bullshit (Score 1) 293 293

If your code as verbose as what it took you to establish:

* I've been writing code for a very long time
* JavaScript has dumbness that shouldn't be defended
* I don't like it's type system

I could see why you might not like JavaScript. But really you strike me as yet another dev who didn't want to learn it, skipped ahead to "The Bad Parts" of the highly overrated "The Good Parts" which are mostly either pointless quibbles that have more to do with how the author would prefer every language operated or represent a failure on the author's part to understand the language in terms of the paradigm it operates in. That same author has an entire secondary speaking/writing career that hinges on being an apologist for JavaScript catering to devs who are frustrated by the fact that JS has similar syntax to Java or C but is VERY different in terms of language design.

I learned JS first but I have worked with C#, Java, Python, PHP, Ruby via Rails and am starting to dabble in C/C++ because I like the idea of having JS at an architectural level with C/C++ bindings handling stuff closer to the chrome. Of those languages I have plenty to criticize but really only find Java to be exceptionally silly. A language and culture so mired in protecting you from your own stupidity and the stupidity of other mediocre developers that it's impossible to get anything done without a thousand lines of code.

Is it possible your decade in Java has taught you some bad habits? Because I for one find the popularity of notions like test-first TDD to be an indicator that we have a whole hell of a lot of developers who have less confidence in their code than they should have before they've gone and committed to a maintainability disaster by loading tests in front of every little piece of it rather than actually learning to leverage architecture to test at key points but also make the code a lot more maintainable/modifiable without a dozen whack-a-mole-bugs or the equivalent, tests breaking, at every little tweak.

I have found that of all the messed up janky legacy codebases I've ever inherited it's the Java devs who appear to understand basic fundamental OOP concepts the least. They basically write procedural C code with pointless class syntax wrapping everything and they make a god-damned awful mess.

Comment Re:I would have LOVED... (Score 1) 293 293

Problems:

* You are comparing Perl to JS as if one replaced the other. Perl was never a client-side language. Or if it ever was, it was never a popular cross-platform option that didn't require a plug-in but certainly it wasn't in the contexts you've been referencing. And JS was primarily a client-side web language long before it ever became available and ultimately popular as a server-side option.

* You are reminiscing about things being long gone that are in fact still in place. I just wrote a Node app leveraging postgresql that in fact features an old-school submit with JavaScript intervening for client-side validation only.

* There being an explosion of libraries is not generally considered a weakness in a language unless you are required to use every last one of them to get anything done. I assure you, you are not. I don't even link jQuery half the time nowadays because most of the value adds it brings are now available through native JS or DOM features and browser support for standards (i.e. compatibility) are actually better now than they ever have been, not worse as you suggested.

It is not JavaScript's problem that you couldn't be bothered to learn anything new about the state of the technology since the first tech crash and given your client/server-side fail I'd wager you didn't understand what you were doing with the technology very well to begin with. And yes, it is obvious, painfully obvious, that you haven't learned a damned thing about web development since the late '90s. If you are lamenting the career that you no longer have in web development I highly recommend some introspection. If you're not up to learning something new every week, you're not cut out for it. And no, most of the new stuff isn't frivolous. It's evolution. There are some stupid and unfortunately popular libraries like Angular.js but I would never trade the DOM or CSS or JS as it is now for the way people had to do it in the '90s. It was a pain in the ass. And Node's had its growing pangs but overall it's !@#$ing amazing. Nothing else just works like core Node has across platforms for me (sadly, you can't make that claim about even some of the more popular modules just yet - too many Linux/Mac OS supremacists in the mix unfortunately).

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Working...