Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Rights and Wrongs of good code. (Score 1) 285

by Xtifr (#46762437) Attached to: OpenBSD Team Cleaning Up OpenSSL

Your friend is ignorant. Goto is a powerful-but-dangerous tool that should be used with extreme caution, if at all. However, to say that it's the mark of a bad programmer is insanely ignorant. It is often the mark of a bad programmer, but it can also be the mark of an exceptionally good one. The key is in knowing when you use it and when not to.

If your friend thinks he's a better programmer than Donald Knuth, then he's almost certainly suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. If he hasn't read Knuth's "Structured Programming with Gotos" (a direct response to Wirth's original "Goto Considered Harmful" paper), then he's not qualified to opine on the subject.

That said, probably 90% of the time (if not more), your friend will be correct. In the last over-a-decade, I've used goto once. And that lone case was after nearly a dozen attempts to find a way to around it that wasn't worse. I don't like gotos, and feel a little dirty that I ended up using it even that once. (If I'd been working in C++ or Java or Python, I would have used an exception, but I was writing in C.) A goto usually makes your code more difficult to read, and more fragile, and you should never use one unless you can prove the alternatives are worse. Which probably takes a lot more expertise than it sounds like you currently have, so avoiding them completely is probably the best plan for now. For you.

Comment: Re:For the Swarm! (Score 1) 126

by Goaway (#46728961) Attached to: The Graffiti Drone

That definition seems to exclude anyone who paints on a canvas to hang in a gallery too.

Pretty much all art is made for others to look at. How you do that varies. Painting it on the side of a building is just one of many ways, that happens to be illegal most of the time. But legality has nothing to do with art.

Comment: Re:Changes in current knowledge (Score 1) 99

by Xtifr (#46711145) Attached to: LHCb Confirms Existence of Exotic Hadrons

what is the consequence of this discovery?

Some idle speculation has finally been confirmed.

Will existing theories be changed (or validated)?

Not really. There was no particular reason to think this was impossible. We just didn't have any evidence it was possible.

Any complications to other theories?

Not to any useful theories. Theories like the Electric Universe have one more thing added to the list of things they can't explain, but that's no surprise. :)

Comment: Re:Bu the wasn't fired (Score 1) 1109

by Xtifr (#46709601) Attached to: Mozilla CEO Firestorm Likely Violated California Law

That's a fair point, and if he really wanted to sue Mozilla, I'd expect that would be his most plausible angle to try to exploit. However, A) I don't think he wants to sue Mozilla, which makes the whole question somewhat moot, and B) he's still primarily a techy, not a professional CEO, which might well have made a more tech-oriented position attractive to him if the issue had actually come up before he resigned.

Comment: Re:The Re-Hate Campaign (Score 1) 1109

by Xtifr (#46700389) Attached to: Mozilla CEO Firestorm Likely Violated California Law

If you support trying to hurt (a set of) people, you shouldn't be surprised if those people (and their friends) start to dislike you and act accordingly.

What alternative do you offer? Forcing people to buy bread from the bigotted baker at gunpoint? Or forcing people to keep using Mozilla even though it's represented by a man who tried to take away their rights?

It would be nice if the world could be broken down into nice, neat piles of black and white, good and evil, but the real world is inevitably more complicated than that, and pretending otherwise is not useful or productive.

I notice you carefully avoided answering my original question, though. Is that because you didn't understand it, or because you couldn't?

Comment: Re:Bu the wasn't fired (Score 1) 1109

by Xtifr (#46700365) Attached to: Mozilla CEO Firestorm Likely Violated California Law

If it was a serious offer, and the company could show that was the position he was best suited for, then no. Otherwise, it would clearly be a ruse to try to force him out, and the law actually takes such things into account. (Which makes your suggestion a straw man.)

A serious offer, for a job that would suit his skills would easily defeat any claims of unlawful termination. A insult obviously intended to pressure him into quitting might not. If you can't figure out the difference between the two, then I recommend you stay away from any job that involves interactions with the law, or the public.

Comment: Re:Bu the wasn't fired (Score 1) 1109

by Xtifr (#46699053) Attached to: Mozilla CEO Firestorm Likely Violated California Law

The chairman of the board went on the record saying "It's clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting".

The key word there is "lead". Show me where it said he should leave the company, rather than merely take a different role within the company, and I might concede you have a point. But if mere employment is equivalent to leading, then my employers are going to be in for some big surprises tomorrow! :)

Comment: Re:The Re-Hate Campaign (Score 4, Informative) 1109

by Xtifr (#46699015) Attached to: Mozilla CEO Firestorm Likely Violated California Law

How did he attempt to limit the rights of others?

Duh, by attempting to take away the rights of people. (Same-sex marriage was legal in California at the time.) I don't know how much more obvious it could be. The fact that he has the right to say it doesn't mean he wasn't attempting to limit the rights of others.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from all consequences. If your local baker were campaigning to repeal the 19th amendment, would you argue that women (or people who like women) who refuse to buy his products are infringing his rights somehow? If so, you have one of the stupidest definitions of "I'll defend to the death your right to say it" I've ever heard.

Comment: Re:Bu the wasn't fired (Score 2) 1109

by Xtifr (#46698719) Attached to: Mozilla CEO Firestorm Likely Violated California Law

Did you even read the summery: "'It's clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting,' Baker was quoted as saying."

Did you even read it? It says "lead", not "work for". To win a suit, he'd have to prove that no other openings would have been available to him in the company. And this is a man who was valued primarily for his technical skills (as the developer of Javascript), and who was promoted from within, so I think that would be quite a stretch.

A LISP programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing. -- Alan Perlis