Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:What killed Ruby (Score 1) 291

by Wdomburg (#48469287) Attached to: Is Ruby On Rails Losing Steam?

It may not be the most popular option, but Ruby is hardly a marginal language. RedMonk has it tied for 6th with C++, PYPL has it at 10th, and TIOBE has it at 14th. It came off from the Rails high, but it remains steadily popular.

The ecosystem has actually got significantly better over the years, especially as Puppet, Chef, MCollective and others have driven popularity as an admin language, rather than a web language. But more importantly, JRuby pulls in the entire Java ecosystem, which actually puts it in a better position than perl or python, in my opinion. There is Jython, but that lags significantly behind C Python (current stable is 2.5 compatible, which was released eight years ago; their 2.7 release has been in beta for about 21 months) while JRuby offers Ruby 2.1 compatibility in their current stable release and will be putting out their release candidate for 2.2 around the same time as the Ruby 2.2 stable release.

Comment: Re:If it's losing steam it's because (Score 2) 291

by Wdomburg (#48469007) Attached to: Is Ruby On Rails Losing Steam?

The real win for me is JRuby. The Java ecosystem is at least as broad as perl, and generally better suited to enterprise applications. There are generally perl modules for everything, but they often perform far worse (e.g. Net::LDAP is probably an order of magnitude slower than UnboundID processing LDIF) or are just terrible code (e.g. Net::Sieve::Script which is a regex-based hack, rather than an actual language parser like jSieve).

Comment: Re:If it's losing steam it's because (Score 1) 291

by Wdomburg (#48468875) Attached to: Is Ruby On Rails Losing Steam?

1) anyObject.class

2) Um, no. Objects cannot magically change their class, period. You might assign a different object to a given variable, but the language is strongly typed.

3) Huh? There are relatively few symbols in Ruby, as a rule. Are you referring to special variables (like $: $0 etc?)? Those are ancillary and not considered idiomatic these days. Don't like them? Don't use them.

4) Why shouldn't they? The first is a just a chained method. No different than "foo.split(' ').length;" in Java. I'm assuming the latter is supposed to be "num.to_s 16", which would be "Integer.toString(num,16)" in Java, but that is just because the Java designers weren't nice enough to allow you to pass a radix argument to the non-static method. There is nothing in the language that would have precluded "num.toString(16);" being valid.

Comment: Why would you come to Slashdot for this? (Score 0) 928

by Wdomburg (#48278325) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Can You Say Something Nice About Systemd?

If you want to know the impetus behind systemd, why not go to source. Lennart lays out the problems he was trying to solve and the design process on his blog. Specifically, the intro post and biggest myths rundown would a solid positive case for the approach and technology.

Comment: Re:Submitter doesn't understand Wikipedia notabili (Score 1) 98

by Wdomburg (#48170605) Attached to: Python-LMDB In a High-Performance Environment

Don't know, don't care. The case against notability was stronger when it was first submitted, likely, but it is certainly hard to defend now. There are mature bindings for most languages, it underpins a number of higher level data stores (including OpenLDAP, of course, but also FineDB, Hustle), and is a supported back-end for a large number of projects (sometimes as a default component, as with CFengine and Zimbra).

Comment: Re:Ebola threat (Score 1) 478

by Wdomburg (#48119819) Attached to: The CDC Is Carefully Controlling How Scared You Are About Ebola

No, that's exactly what I read into the suits. Dealing with a deadly, incurable disease demands an excess of caution, even if the transmission rate is dramatically lower than other diseases. You don't need each patient to infect a hundred other people for it to spread; so long as it is more than one, it is a growing problem.

The risk here isn't because the disease is especially contagious; it is because the containment and treatment is especially costly. Doctor diagnoses someone with the flu, they send them home and tell them to drink plenty of wayer and get plenty of rest. In an extreme case, they may push IV fluids and keep a few days for observation.

With Ebola that becomes weeks of quarantine and treatment, stringent sterilization procedures, and monitoring anyone they've come in contact with. It wouldn't take an especially large outbreak to strain and ultimately exhaust available resources. And as necessity forces compromises in care and treatment by untrained individuals, transmission rates will spike.

Comment: Re:Ebola threat (Score 1) 478

by Wdomburg (#48119623) Attached to: The CDC Is Carefully Controlling How Scared You Are About Ebola

Coughing and sneezing may be symptoms of specific diseases, but they are also reflexes that are not necessarily linked to a specific disease. People may cough because they aspirated saliva, or because they just came in from smoking. People may sneeze because its ragweed season, of because of the judiciously applied perfume of the person next to them (or the guy who just came in from smoking), or even as a reaction to a brightly lit waiting room.

Possibly a bigger risk than the waiting room itself would be the bathrooms. The likelihood of contamination when there is evacuation of infectious material, as well as repeated bare skin contact with the same surface by a stream of individuals strikes me as very high, especially if some patients wait long enough that they have developed rashes.

In iso+lation, this is a solvable problem, but if a critical mass of patients develops, it can quickly get out of hand. Especially now, as we are enter flu season.

Comment: Re:Ebola threat (Score 1) 478

by Wdomburg (#48119541) Attached to: The CDC Is Carefully Controlling How Scared You Are About Ebola

Separation is not enough when the virus can survive outside the body for extended periods. All it takes is for one infected individual to rest their sweaty hands on an armrest and that seat becomes a possible vector. There is a reason people are wearing those suits, and it is not because they look cool.

Sending people with sick kids is not a particularly viable long term solution. Even if it reduces the immediate risk to the general population, it puts the rest of their family at grave risk and is a likely death sentence for the child. Homes are simply not equipped to deliver the necessary palliative care needed by patients, nor are most people trained in the necessary sanitation procedures to prevent transmission.

Any given program, when running, is obsolete.

Working...