Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Give up the keys (Score 1) 125

by Pherdnut (#46888315) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Intelligently Moving From IT Into Management?

I'm a developer and deeply grateful that running the network is somebody else's job given that I can't even seem to figure out what in a windows 7 reinstall/re-update has completely nuked my wireless connectivity on my silly little home network. Never assume the other guy's job is easy. Even if you know a thing or two about how to DIY.

Comment: RE:Vive le Galt! (Score 1) 695

by Pherdnut (#46356327) Attached to: Mt. Gox Gone? Apparent Theft Shakes Bitcoin World

It's kind of like saying "What part of electricity gets light to the most in need?" Money is just an abstraction of value and a device for distributing it. Fairness isn't its job. If it was more challenging to screw the little guy in the barter system, that's only because everything is more challenging in a barter system and while I'm no great scholar of the history of barter, I'm pretty sure they still screwed the little guy when there wasn't money. Socialism and communism haven't prevented the screwing of the little guy. Fear of Hell hasn't stopped the screwing of the little guy. The information age has really just made the screwing of the little guy considerably more efficient.

At some fucking point, we have to evolve beyond this BS but it hasn't happened yet and trying to blame it on money is ultimately dodging culpability for the real problem which is us. Let's take Gene Roddenberry screwing over Alexander Courage for instance:

That's the guy who famously believed money was the root of all evil and dared imagine a world without it. But was the problem really money or was it that he was an asshole? In a Star Trek world he could have just as easily stolen credit for doing the work. There's always something of value to steal or threaten to get what you want or to get people to give you what you want. Taking money away doesn't change that.

Comment: JavaScript is paradigm-free (Score 1) 505

by Pherdnut (#46137181) Attached to: The JavaScript Juggernaut Rolls On

I would actually disagree with the statement that it's paradigm free. While I respect C# as a feat of language design, one thing I don't like about its implementation of every language feature it can get its hands on is that it doesn't have a very strong opinion and there's just a crap-ton of syntax you have to learn as you work with it (although given the alternative I'd rather have first-class funcs in any language at the expense of bonus syntax). JS encourages OOP and functional used together and has strived to do a lot with a little syntax. Strictly imperative isn't really possible if you're using it for web UI as much of the DOM relies on event handlers and you can't really escape the topics of closure or OOP when you start doing non-trivial stuff from there. Functions can be classes or methods or in many cases both.

Comment: RE:Run to the hills! (Score 1) 505

by Pherdnut (#46137125) Attached to: The JavaScript Juggernaut Rolls On

That's the default behavior in a language that can mix numbers and strings and then convert them to match dynamically for purposes of comparison in the same array, yes. Not a very hard problem to solve:


function sortNumeric(a,b){ return a-b; }

So what you in ignorance thought was a flaw is actually a demonstration of one of JS's most powerful features. We've been writing functional code long before F# showed up.

Comment: Or you could learn to write maintainable in JavaSc (Score 1) 505

by Pherdnut (#46137009) Attached to: The JavaScript Juggernaut Rolls On

I'm sorry, but the whining in this industry is getting pretty epic. Learn the !@#$ing tool. It's not Java or C#. You CAN write maintainable code without static types. JS and Python devs have been doing it for some time now. And believe you me, it would really help C# and Java devs with their primary languages if they learned how to.

I took a fish head to the movies and I didn't have to pay. -- Fish Heads, Saturday Night Live, 1977.