Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Charged /= Guilty (Score 1) 230

Yeah, we're agreed on this one. I kind of wonder if they started the campaign because they think it's some kind of Republican conspiracy, and they want to expose it.

Also, I am kind of skeptical of someone who is "an old friend" of anonymous, without being anonymous herself.

Comment: Re:facepalm (Score 1) 56

by phantomfive (#48901623) Attached to: Ed Felten: California Must Lead On Cybersecurity

This is the intent of "separate but equal" States at it's core.

That is definitely an advantage of the federal system, but it was not the purpose. The constitution was written that way to prevent the centralized government from becoming too dictatorial. Indeed, if the constitution had given the national government much more power, not all of the states would have joined.

Comment: Re:Hints from an over-the-hill programmer (Score 1) 321

by phantomfive (#48900397) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is Pascal Underrated?

Everybody's seen expressive code. You can look at the code and understand what it does almost instantly. Comments, variable names, abstraction, everything that makes a great programmer, all of these things come into play. Conversely, everybody's seen shitty code that takes several days to understand. I don't care what language it is. You're a horrible programmer if you write code like this.

Well said. I would suggest that not everyone has seen expressive code, though.

Comment: Re:Contribution? (Score 1) 148

by phantomfive (#48900311) Attached to: Bjarne Stroustrup Awarded 2015 Dahl-Nygaard Prize
That's great, I was hoping you'd have something interesting to say on this point, and you did not disappoint. If I may summarize, I see three main points in your post (maybe this isn't a very good summary):

1) Knowledge of design patterns don't help programmers become better (and may make them worse)
2) GoF the book was not well-researched, they didn't show that the patterns solved a common problem.
3) GoF was not well-researched, they didn't show that the patterns even solve a problem, only that they can be used.

I would add that in my own experience, code rarely fits neatly into the GoF design patterns. Sometimes the problem matches something similar, but rarely the exact pattern. And even when it does match, I usually use a modified version (example, singleton [which I call a global variable] I rarely make an actual singleton. For example, if I have a clipboard class, I make it generic enough to have multiple clipboards, but then designate one of those as the system-wide clipboard or whatever).

btw the organization of your post is solid, that was some nice rhetoric; logical flow from the weakest point to more convincing points until the end where your final paragraph is strongly stated, but feels as though it naturally flows from the rest of your points.

Comment: Re:Poor Alan Kay (Score 1) 148

by phantomfive (#48899011) Attached to: Bjarne Stroustrup Awarded 2015 Dahl-Nygaard Prize

Would be nice, but would cause major backwards compatibility breakage because all but one compiler would have to change the magling scheme

All the same, it would be nice if they'd given a recommended method of name mangling, because over time (a decade or more) all compilers would converge on that recommendation. But anyway, to me name-mangling's a minor issue compared to problems like calling conventions, especially with things like smartpointers. Not sure there's a way to fix that problem, but it sure can be annoying when you're trying to interface with C++.

Mausoleum: The final and funniest folly of the rich. -- Ambrose Bierce