Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:"Easy to read" is non-sense (Score 4, Interesting) 396

by LWATCDR (#49743855) Attached to: The Reason For Java's Staying Power: It's Easy To Read

I disagree that it is because java is easy to read. Java is easy to write. A good programer can write an app in Java and have it work really well. A bad programer can write an app in java it will work.
With C++ a good programer can write an app and it will work but you really have to watch for a lot of gotchas. A bad programer can not write a program that works in C++ because it will leak memory, stomp on memory, and have issues with pointers.
Java is better at stopping the little brain farts from blowing up in your face.
C++ is a lot more fun to write in IMHO.

Comment: Re:If I use an IDE, does it mean I'm a bad program (Score 1) 432

by Just Some Guy (#49737369) Attached to: Choosing the Right IDE

Why do you assume that your IDE has features that Emacs doesn't? It's been in active development for 39 years to be a great, productive programming environment. Do you honestly believe that it's had 4 decades of worldwide contribution and not become reasonably good at helping people write software?

Without exception, everyone I've heard decry Emacs and Vim as "just text editors" has never used them beyond "open file / type / save" and has no idea what they were working with. It's like dismissing Linux because you've only used it as an AWS shell, and you feel sorry for people who won't upgrade to Windows so that they can use a web browser.

Comment: Re:There can be only one. (Score 5, Insightful) 432

by Just Some Guy (#49730405) Attached to: Choosing the Right IDE

Longer answer: IDE? No thanks. At least, I've used Eclipse variants and various Visual Studios, but they map onto how I think about writing and managing software. I want a blank screen with lots of keyboard shortcuts, some basic autocompletion, perfect syntax highlighting, maybe some Git support, etc. I don't want code generation or any refactor-all-the-things functions; I won't be using them.

I used Emacs for years and years, only eventually switching to Sublime Text. ST was beautiful and fast but didn't have nearly the ecosystem of Emacs, plus its non-Freeness started showing when it went many months without an update. Life's too short for a proprietary editor, which is where I spent approximately 60% of my work life. I dependent on it more than any other tool and the prospect of my chosen tool dying on the vine wasn't appealing. I tried Atom for about a week, but it was slower than ST2, lacked a broad ecosystem, and, well... JavaScript.

So one day I decided to revisit Emacs. Hey! It grew a package manager! Since that afternoon, I've had zero desire to look back. Emacs will outlive me and my children, will support every new language and tool that comes along, and will always be Free. There's nothing out there good enough to make me consider switching.

PS, in concession: I could make the same cases for Vim and its grandchildren. Once you've learned them, if they do what you need then there's very little compelling reason to change.

Comment: Re:Make it more expensive ? (Score 2) 242

by Just Some Guy (#49729901) Attached to: Why Apple Ditched Its Plan To Build a Television

A big reason for drinking Starbucks is to show other people that you can afford it.

LOLWUT? Starbucks in cheaper than most of the local coffee ships near me. I love love LOVE the Philz Coffee downstairs but I'm not kidding myself about the price: that Ecstatic Iced isn't gonna pay for itself. Coffee Bar was better (and more expensive) yet. Around SF, at least, people buy Starbucks for the same reasons they buy McDonald's: it's a known quality and not expensive. It won't be the best you've had, but it'll be exactly like the last cup you bought and it won't break the bank.

On my block, Starbucks is the opposite of conspicuous consumption. It's what you get when you're in a hurry or aren't from around here.

Comment: Answer: because it was an awful idea (Score 2) 242

by Just Some Guy (#49729015) Attached to: Why Apple Ditched Its Plan To Build a Television

I bought and use an Apple TV all the time. It's how my kids watch Netflix, and how we rent movies 99% of the time. I love it. I would never buy an Apple television, though, because 1) I like my Vizio, 2) I don't want to have to upgrade my display just because an input device broke or became obsolete, and 3) there literally zero advantage to that arrangement instead of an external box connected via HDMI.

Lots of devices have built-in screens and it makes sense for them. I wouldn't buy a separate screen for a display-less laptop, for instance; making CPU + display into a single unit is perfectly reasonable. There is no reason at all for that to be true in the living room, though. How many sizes should they make? Does everyone get a 60" Apple Television even if they have a tiny living room, or will I be squinting at a 30" Apple Television from across the room? Which pixel technology will they choose? Eh, no thanks. Component systems still have their place, and the living room entertainment system is probably the perfect example of that.

I love my cheap little Apple TV and will probably upgrade it to the next model when that comes out. I don't love it so much that I'd throw out a perfectly usable display panel as part of the deal.

Comment: Re:This is possibly the dumbest things I've seen.. (Score 1) 68

It really depends on the system.
For instance things like logistics aka buying food, cleaning supplies, tools, and so on. could all be done on COTs systems and using public data centers.
Things like how many SM-2s are down for repair is a different issue.
And then keeping things separated is yet another issue.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 2) 121

by LWATCDR (#49721519) Attached to: Learning About Constitutional Law With Star Wars

" One could easily say that the capitalists are the greater evil, especially the owners big corporations, because they pollute the Earth, are utterly greedy, etc and have no concern for the distribution of resources among those who need them."
Really?
Wow I guess you have not seen what the old USSR did in the areas that controlled as far as the environment, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....
Or the quality of air in China...
"and have no concern for the distribution of resources among those who need them."
Wow.. again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Yea... You need to read a lot more history.

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie

Working...