Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:its why devs cringe. (Score 1) 155

by squiggleslash (#47580305) Attached to: PHP Finally Getting a Formal Specification

FWIW, in answer to your "Can't speak for PHP" thing, PHP has, for reasons known only to the person that implemented, two incompatible dictionary type structures, objects and arrays. They're both equivalent, and because they're not compatible an enormous number of developers of third party libraries and frameworks feel the need to implement a "Give me it as an object"/"Give me it as an associative array" parameter onto any function that returns one or the other.

And lest you think "Wait! It's obvious squiggy! The associative array is obviously using hashtables and the other is typed!", that's... not (quite) the case. If PHP is optimizing anything with objects at some level, it's certainly not doing so based upon "static-after-parsing-app" set of possible member names: you can convert each to the other form with a simple cast, and you $some_array[$expression] has an object equivalent of $some_object->{$expression}. If it isn't using hashtables for objects too, then it's probably doing something even more braindead.

Comment: Re:Formal specifications are pretty useless for th (Score 1) 155

by squiggleslash (#47578837) Attached to: PHP Finally Getting a Formal Specification

Unless we're using "formal specification" in a form uncommonly known in the English language, ANSI C (hint hint) does, indeed, have a formal specification or three.

In fact, that's part of the problem with C. ANSI spent a lot of time trying to make their specification so generic it could be implemented on all kinds of different hardware, leaving us with a language that means virtually every bit of "obvious what it does" readable code can be re-interpreted by every optimizing compiler to mean something completely different. A big problem, considering C's system programming roots.

Comment: Re:Who is stopping him? (Score 1) 371

by Motherfucking Shit (#47519795) Attached to: 'Just Let Me Code!'

GP poster is just trolling, with his "Eclipse, like all free IDE's, sucks" comment. You don't notice him mentioning his own environment.

The only other strong suggestion he can make is Android Studio, which instead of bundling Android SDK with Eclipse it bundles Android SDK with IDEA. Which would be fine, if it wasn't languishing in bug reports of its own, new major releases every week, breaking due to Gradle configurations that cause hair-pulling (what the fuck is Gradle and what was wrong with Ant and Maven for dependency management), etc etc. And forget trying to migrate from Eclipse with the SDK over to Android Studio. For God's sake, even when Google I/O was going on, the current builds of Android Studio on offer still didn't work any better than the Eclipse SDK. Life apparently is no better in the Mac world but I don't have experience there.

Don't get me wrong, I love Android, I have 3 Android devices, I'm interested in developing Android apps personally. I'm not knocking Java, I use it. I'm not knocking existing IDEs, I use them. What I'm knocking is the constant moving target status of Android where things change so fucking quickly their own devs can't even keep up with their own IDE bundles or their own documentation. As a potential Android developer, everything I run into is a turnoff. Look at the project and look at all the open issues with the IDE tools and the SDK (forget API and device bugs, those are all to be expected, I'm talking serious problems with the developer tools only). I don't have time to deal with that shit for fun.

Comment: Re:Who is stopping him? (Score 5, Insightful) 371

by Motherfucking Shit (#47518357) Attached to: 'Just Let Me Code!'

Let's say you're a competent Java developer and you'd like to build an Android app. I wish you the best of luck!

First you're going to need to pick an IDE. I've always used Eclipse and hey look, there's an Android SDK for Eclipse. Perfect! Download, extract, fire it up... Errors. This version of Android SDK requires Android API version foo, you have version (foo - 9), please use the SDK manager to upgrade. The hell, the IDE bundle doesn't even launch out of the box?

Alright, so you're distributing your IDE with an outdated version of your API, I can forgive that. Run SDK Manager like it suggested, let it do its thing,. Update available for SDK tools and SDK platform tools, looks good, do it! ...And, errors. Package not found, blah blah, let's see what Google has to say about this one.

OK, apparently hundreds of other developers are having the same problem and have, after much wrangling, figured out a solution on their own. I see, I have to go into SDK Manager Settings, create a new User-Defined Add-On Site pointing to because the URL that ships with the IDE is missing the "s" in "https" and that server doesn't have the right packages available to download. That highly intuitive process would surely have been my first try anyway, but at least someone else found the fix.

SDK Manager seems to find the packages now, great! Got past that hurdle so let's do the upgrade. Wait, now what! What do you mean you can't upgrade to SDK Tools rev. 23 while SDK Platform Tools 19.0.2 is installed? I checked the boxes to upgrade them both; if Platform Tools has to hit rev. 20 before SDK Tools can be upgraded, why is the installer going in the wrong order?

If and when you finally get the actual goddamned IDE installed and working, have fun with the official developer tutorials to create your first "Hello World" app. See, the API has changed over the years^Wmonth^Wpast week and so the app architecture that the tutorial talks about isn't valid anymore. XML files that it says should be there, aren't, so there's no way to follow along in the tutorial by editing them.

I gave up on Android and won't touch it again unless I'm being paid to.

Comment: Re:Free market economy (Score 5, Insightful) 529

We didn't just build industry. We built the freeway system. We built the space program. We rebuilt our military to defend the world against the Russians. That was all government spending. And yes, our top tax rate was 91%. Millionaires still made buckets of money. But, they paid their taxes and shit got done.

Then, Reagan came into office and lowered that top rate. All of a sudden, the government deficits started going up and work didn't get done. Millionaires started using their new buckets of money for speculation. Now, we're in a recession as a result of Wall Street speculation and we can't fix a fucking pothole let alone pave a single new freeway.

Comment: Re:Railroads killed by the government... (Score 1) 195

by squiggleslash (#47474927) Attached to: The Improbable Story of the 184 MPH Jet Train

No, I didn't contradict myself otherwise you'd have quoted me contradicting myself, instead of acknowledging it using different phrasing, "loss leader".


What makes food service profitable is that passengers ride the train that otherwise wouldn't. Tell Amtrak to discontinue food service, and it would destroy ridership on their already poorly performing long distance services. The subsidy needed to continue operating them would skyrocket, and would be immensely high per-passenger.

If something results in more revenue without a corresponding or larger rise in costs, it's never legitimate to describe it as "loss making." Never. So yes, it's entirely valid for me to call the claim "dubious at best".

Comment: Re:And? (Score 2) 195

by squiggleslash (#47473545) Attached to: The Improbable Story of the 184 MPH Jet Train

Nah. There's a lot of crap spoken about the NYC Jet train thing. One presumption, which has more to do with smarty-pants hindsight, is that it was a prototype for a serious train, that NYC actually planned to run high speed trains like that. But that's not the case.

NYC added jets to some unused rolling stock because it was a _quick_ _cheap_ way to get a train to go fast. They wanted a train to go fast because they were studying how high speed trains would interact with the track. Would it be possible to run them without huge infrastructure upgrade costs?

And lest you think "But track's track right? Surely all they have to do is make it strong enough", there are known problems with running trains at high speed on conventional track without significant engineering. The major one is something called "Hunting", which is an oscillation of the wheel sets between one extreme and the other that generates a kind of feedback loop. With slower trains, it's not a problem, there's not enough energy involved, but as the train reaches higher speeds, the wheelsets oscillate left and right with greater, and greater, violence. Anything over 100mph generally is thought to require a certain amount of attention.

"OK", you say, "But why jets? Why not just regear a normal locomotive and have it carry a couple of cars so it can get to that speed?" The answer to that is that a normal locomotive is heavy. Virtually every vision of high speed rail from sane people (that is, people who don't work for the Federal Railroad Administration) involves trains that are as light weight as practically possible, because heavy = more energy needed to start the train, heavy = more problems stopping the train in an emergency, and heavy = greater damage to tracks. Sticking a Jet, designed for an aircraft, a device known for needing designs where every pound of weight is justified, on a railroad carriage doesn't sound so insane now does it?

Had NYC continued to exist rather than being merged into PR in the horrific Penn Central project, and decided to make a serious go of this, you would have expected the research to lead to a conventional EMU style train, or maybe something like the APT with light weight cars and as light weight as possible electric motive units. No trains with jets. It's an interesting question what the railroad map of the US would have looked like had governments not imposed impractical restrictions on urban redevelopment, had they not overregulated the railroads, and had the Penn Central never happened.

Comment: Re:Railroads killed by the government... (Score 2, Informative) 195

by squiggleslash (#47473475) Attached to: The Improbable Story of the 184 MPH Jet Train

I think pretty much everyone accepts the government killed passenger rail. It's not just what you mention, but also state support for suburbanization and the running down of Urban areas, including effective bans on Urban redevelopment (well meant but poorly thought out "parking mandates" effectively made it prohibitively expensive to redevelop land in cities), leading to the flight out of cities to areas where car ownership was mandatory.

As far as Amtrak losing money on food service, despite it becoming a right-wing meme that this true, it's dubious at best. Amtrak doesn't charge enough for food to cover the costs of providing it, but that's normal, both commercial services - even pre-1950s when most passenger services were profitable - and government provided services generally don't expect to make their money from charges for food.

What makes food service profitable is that passengers ride the train that otherwise wouldn't. Tell Amtrak to discontinue food service, and it would destroy ridership on their already poorly performing long distance services. The subsidy needed to continue operating them would skyrocket, and would be immensely high per-passenger.

This wouldn't even be an argument but for some stupid politics in the 1980s, where Congress started to micromanage the service and decided, despite the fact no commercial railroad would dream of doing such a thing, to demand Amtrak make food service "pay" for itself out of food service charges, rather than be paid for in part through ticket revenue.

So why is Amtrak unprofitable?

Amtrak's actually pretty profitable in one area, the NEC, which is where they control their tracks and were able to build a redundant (that is, a train covering stops already covered by other trains) service that people actually wanted to use, and charge commercial rates for it.

The big problem is outside of that area, it has much less flexibility. It runs very slow (average 40mph) trains that are slow because they stop every 20-30 minutes. Why do they stop every 20-30 minutes?

Want to know? Specifically, why does the SIlver Star stop in both Orlando and Winter Park which are both part of the same metro area?

Answer: because Orlando gives them Corrine Brown's vote when funding comes up in Congress, and Winter Park gets them a (semi-reluctant, he's having to avoid attacks of being a RINO from a strong Tea Party movement) John Mica's vote. And likewise there's a train in, I don't know, the North West that stops every twenty minutes to get votes there too. And each vote crosses over. The votes in the North West are for both the Empire Builder and the Silver Star, you can't vote for one without the other. Brown and Mica's votes are, again, for the Silver Star and the Empire Builder.

Ludicrous? Yes. But we don't have a Congress based upon people deciding the "right" thing to do for the country, we have one based upon people deciding the popular thing for their constituents.

Given enough capital funding, Amtrak could probably do to the rest of the country what it's done to the North East, but it'll never get that funding, because what it needs to do is something that'd involve dropping stops, and thus dropping supporters. The good news is that private railroads are finally taking an interest, and there are projects in both Florida and Texas right now - active, in the process of getting regulatory approval, by companies who own or will own the tracks - to start building what people want to use, not what Congress makes possible.

I'm not blaming Amtrak for this state of affairs. I'm blaming Congress, and by extension, us voters.

Comment: Re:For us dummies.... (Score 1) 382

by squiggleslash (#47461447) Attached to: White House Punts On Petition To Allow Tesla Direct Sales

Traditional car companies see Tesla as a threat

No, they really don't. Tesla's a small luxury car manufacturer, these come and go with depressing regularity.

The car manufacturers are just as unhappy with the dealership system as Tesla is. The difference is that they're resigned to it, having worked with it for decades.

Want to know one reason why Ford didn't go bust but GM did? GM's large number of brands meant it had more dealer agreements, and each cancelled dealer agreement was a lawsuit waiting to happen, so it ended up burdened with more brands and more dealers than it needed.

Comment: Re:Had to stop after a minute... (Score 1) 401

by squiggleslash (#47461137) Attached to: Comcast Customer Service Rep Just Won't Take No For an Answer

Try something out of left field that they're unlikely to have an answer for (from marketing, anyway.)

"I'm opposed to Comcast's position on net neutrality" would be a good one. You can kinda feel good making it, and they're not going to add long drawn out political positions to their anti-churn script.

The F-15 Eagle: If it's up, we'll shoot it down. If it's down, we'll blow it up. -- A McDonnel-Douglas ad from a few years ago