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


Forgot your password?

Comment Which apps? (Score 1) 217

Browsing source on my repositories I can use Ctrl-F just fine - which other apps have you encountered that?

I have to admit I've never tried using the UI over dial-up, but that seems like a pretty niche issue for most people. You could still use a command line or other git client instead which would perform a lot better with that kind of network constraint... I totally agree with those who say the modern web has gotten too bloated but for something like BitBucket I would hate to lose some nice features the site has to accommodate those with really slow connections.

Comment Re:fast growth (Score 5, Interesting) 217

If anyone can take over the throne from GitHub, why would it not be BitBucket? They produce the excellent and free Git client Sourcetree, and all around have a more reasonable pricing model than GitHub.

It's not like I don't have a GitHub account, everyone does, but I also have a BitBucket account and have no qualms switching to them entirely if GitHub really starts being a problem (well, MORE of a problem since they did just recently have a big outage... perhaps that was early warning).

Comment Re:This is what real choice looks like (Score 0) 385

However, I'm unsure how useful it is to brick the phone rather than disable the fingerprint reader in question and force the user to enter their passcode they created

At first that seems a bit nicer for the user, but thinking longer term I think it makes a lot of sense to disable the device if it's detected it has been tampered with - I feel that's OK because of the ease of restoring the system from a backup, including the secure items in the keychain. If one bit of hardware has been compromised who knows what else was - why risk it? It just adds a lot of complexity around knowing the system is truly secure or not.

Comment This is what real choice looks like (Score -1) 385

Apple is not "getting away" with anything. They are actually being serious about security on the phone. I know this might be confusing because you are used to a world that just does the minimum possible to pretend to secure hardware and telling you it's actually secure...

This is what real choice looks like. People can buy an iPhone that is actually serious about security and may lock you out of data if you mess up the device. That's why backups are important... after all if anyone had an iCloud backup of their iPhone it wouldn't matter if the phone suddenly decided to lock you out, because you could get another device and it would be restored.

Or, people can say - I'd prefer not to be as serious about security, and buy an Android device. That is a valid choice also and I can see why others would make it. Please however do not think if that is your preference, that we should also want that same lower level of security to be default. I prefer for example my parents have this higher level of security and I just have to make sure that they have backups that are working, but at least I don't have to worry about malware or thieves stealing the farm as it were.

Comment Spin, Spin, Spin (Score 1) 634

A slightly unlikely thing happened

It's not "slightly unlikely". It's a one in 64 chance.

Again, it could happen - but it's VERY unlikely. It's just a leading indicator of all sorts of other things being done not nearly so visible.

Like, for instance, posters such as yourself on all public outlets trying to claim winning six out of six coin tosses is slightly unlikely...

Comment Re:97% odds against either winning all flips fairl (Score 1) 634

Don't forget the possibility that many supposed Bernie representatives in any position of power are really Hillary plants - I'd wager more than half of the coin tosses were ever actually done, both reps just agreeing Clinton won.

Hillary really wants to win and she will stop at nothing.

Comment Guard is much more useful than you are thinking (Score 3, Informative) 123

Guard has the nice side effect of turning an optional into a non-optional, so that you can use a value through a whole method without having to unwrap (or worse, force unwrap) it.

without requiring the code-by-convention Disposable implementation

Frankly that sounds a lot clunkier to me than just having a nice defer block.

"repeat/while" is retarded and an unnecessary change away from well-known and accepted language conventions.

I don't know how long you've been programming but over the years I have run across times where I wanted to run through a loop at least once before checking the end condition, and had to contort a variety of things to accommodate a check at the top of the loop... I hardly think such a useful tool is retarded, when is serves so well in a specific niche.

Protocol extensions are nice, and are probably going to be quite useful in keeping your code readable. C# has had extension methods for a while now

They aren't really the same as extension methods you are talking about, because protocol extensions allow for default implementations that get overridden... both Swift and ObjC have had extensions on classes forever.

Swift protocol extensions are more like C# Abstract Classes. But you can have a class declare conformance to multiple protocols and so gain all of the methods from each, and furthermore you can in an extension on a class make any class implement a protocol and thus gain default protocol implementations...

Comment No actually it's not (Score 1) 123

Language stability is a very big deal if you've got a sizable body of code

That's my point though; it's really not.

I'm working for a client who moved to Swift at release. At this point we have a LOT of production code in Swift, and this is all heavy database and UI code (for an enterprise app). This is not simple stuff, nor simple code...

But the language migration has caused as most a handful of hours of work over the last year or so. Much of that is because of the migration tool, without that it probably would have been more but I don't think it would have been a huge amount more. After all, we have a lot of modern tools for dealing with changing text in batch across a large codebase.

Languages forever have treated syntax as something they simply cannot change, compounding mistake after mistake of initial design because they are too afraid to break existing code. I'm here to say that fear is overblown, and more languages should not be afraid to re-work terrible syntax to make the language better.

I suppose if you're banging out the latest iOS app in six or twelve months

The app i"m on currently has been around for about five years, so no.

I've worked for many large companies with many large and very old codebases so I'm acutely aware of the need to worry about maintainable code. It's just that it turns out worries about language changes are mostly unfounded in terms of being an undue amount of work.

Comment That's been true all along (Score 1) 123

Swift has had source-breaking changes with nearly every version change...

What Swift ALSO has, is a migration tool built into Xcode to upgrade to new versions - so when you feel like Swift has moved into production, you run the migration tool and spend perhaps an hour or so fixing any other issues you find.

Swift has shown that languages of the past have been WAY too afraid of messing with syntax as the language changes, because it's not nearly as big a deal as it would seem.

Comment Re:Apple exists for advancing state of the art (Score 1) 428

Wasn't that the KDE web browser from Linux??

In the same way a Model-T was a kind of car, we've moved on a lot since then.

Isn't Swift the language that even Apple still isn't doing much substancial with?

Nope, it's the language that is widely replacing Objective-C now pretty much everywhere. People have no idea of the real rate of adoption which is massive.

There is not a single large computer company that anbody with a creative spirit would work in today.

That is not true; as I stated I would work in Apple, in large part because Apple does in fact make heavy use of creative energies and they have great projects in many fields.

The only reason I've not even applied is I really, really don't want to work and live in California and they have limited opportunities outside the state.

Comment Re:Wattway site (Score 1) 405

Note in the "minute" video they have used the tiles on every road except for the main road...

Also note that video at the start shows no matter how you rough the surface it's still vastly smother than real asphalt.

The company is obviously a scheme to maximize revenue from the gullible who will buy anything if you label it "solar" or "green". It's green for sure, lots of green to be flowing to the owners and investors of the company ...

Comment That is a REALLY BAD assessment (Score -1, Flamebait) 405

Meh, there's a solar bike path in the Netherlands and they don't seem to have excessive problems with dirt. Because rain exists.

So there's no difference between "dirt" and rubber from much broader contact area of tires with lots of weight on top of them from cars?

Do you know what DOESN'T wash away well in the rain, pretty much a material that is made to resist water? Rubber.

solar panels don't require good "optical quality", only transmission; the light is free to scatter on its way in. It's the same thing that applies to greenhouses - you may have noticed that many greenhouses use "fogged" plastic

This is so mind-bogglingly stupid and wrong and displays such a complete lack of comprehension of solar energy that I had to stop reading anything else you wrote, so I can't respond to whatever else you may consider "points".

A solar panel is in fact an EXACT OPPOSITE of a greenhouse - the greenhouse relies on IR alone, so it doesn't care if photons are reflected. Meanwhile a solar panel doesn't care a whit about IR transmission, ONLY about photons that make it through - any scattering or glossing of the surface dramatically cuts down on light that can reach the solar cells inside, because many of the photons end up either being reflected or scattered to the sides away from the cells.

I like solar power for many applications but put in roads is a really bad idea except for limited uses (like bye paths). It's really depressing to me how other people claiming to be solar advocates are killing the technology through completely moronic uses of solar that are obviously nothing but giant tools for government graft that will fail utterly and sour the general populace on solar as a whole.

Slashdot Top Deals

10 to the minus 6th power Movie = 1 Microfilm