Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Why not future proof the application? (Score 1) 257 257

This is how my longest lived project has been. Originally written for SunOS and HP/UX and Cray's UNICOS in the late 80s, it is still a live client/server application managing 100+ million files running on a wide variety of UNIX-like environments. The maintainers (me for the first ten years, others since then) have migrated development and production environments several times during the 25 years the project has been running.

Comment: Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way (Score 1) 1032 1032


Fact is, when my parents were in school, ANY degree was good enough. You really could go get a philosophy degree because the jobs were mostly mid level office jobs and didn't require skill so much as the ability to read and learn a bit....perfect for people who had learned how to learn and could all read. Didn't matter what they studied then.

Now, well, that philosophy degree qualifies you to teach philosophy and fuck all else. The value of the products they offer varies greatly, and they still pretend a philosophy degree even matters. Frankly, I don't see why they should even offer philosophy beyond an associates; its just not worth it to the point it counts as a scam really.

The author says that rather than do that (get an ordinary job), he intentionally chose the (lack of) career path that he's on.

Comment: Too good to be true (Score 5, Informative) 243 243

The article presents some info that just isn't quite right. The device will probably be useful but not nearly as good as they claim. Instead of 8 or more to one times the typical battery lifetime, it will be more like two times. Google "joule thief" and read the articles and comments carefully. This device works the same way; just in a compact package.

Comment: Re:Answer (Score 4, Informative) 336 336

Huh!? According to Stroustrup in "Design and Evolution of C++", C was certainly intended to be "C with a little extra". It was also designed to be C with a lot extra. He intentionally created the language so that C style code would still run just as fast as before. You could just take advantage of the nice things like function prototypes (remember when C++ first came into being was before ANSI C) and declaring for loop variables inside the loop, etc. You could begin to use the new features as you wanted.

Or, you could go full bore with objects, etc.

Thirty years of development later, we have today's C++.

"Oh my! An `inflammatory attitude' in alt.flame? Never heard of such a thing..." -- Allen Gwinn, allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM