Science doesn't work that way.
Didn't. Or isn't supposed to But scientists are human. They do have to eat. Which means they have to work for profit or for hand outs. And then it's just the matter of who's motivated to give the hand outs (grants).
bad news for the deniers
I don't know too many deniers. Plenty of skeptics though. And the more ad hominems are used to defend "science" (for example, by calling skeptics "deniers"), the less scientific credibility these positions have.
you'd have a million guys
Who'd pay for it? If you can't establish credibility, you can't get paid. If you question paid-for consensus, you get shut down as not credible. It's catch 22. Unless you show that a lot of grant money goes to credible efforts to actively disprove the hypothesis, you can't claim that it's been tested and vetted. You need to show me where you have grants which actually motivate contrarian evidence. An no, oil company payments don't count. Because receiving those immediately discredits the researchers. So can you show me government sponsored research aimed at disproving AGW and done by researchers who are paid more only if they can successfully challenge some of the standing hypothesis? No? Only grant money if they provide further evidence supporting government control and intervention? Nough said.
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that a person who cannot properly use C (and understand how memory management works) has no business writing mission-critical software in any language. JVM's garbage collector is for sissies. =P
You are an armature. Making mark-and-sweep mission critical actually requires a trick which DOES include keeping track of all memory you grab from the heap. Relying on gc is only something you can afford to do with low-frequency-creation-destruction objects. Just so you understand, I have written systems which relied on GC-based languages and which had to create and destroy objects faster than GC could handle them. And the way I did it did not make the system grow to the worst-case-scenario use pooling. Tell me I am a sissy to my face... cause my code will run circles around your code
Object-oriented is good for projects that need to be maintained
Only if you think that a program "does" stuff. If you think of the actions in the program as secondary to what is being accomplished, OO reduces the attention span foot print.
less duplication means less typing
You are a bad person. I mean it. From the bottom of my heart. You think that 20 seconds of your typing is worth 20 minutes of my reading.
entirely optional. and can be turned off at compile time.
only part of runtime if you want it to be.
dynamic memory allocation and the crappy way new/delete handle out of memory
utter unadulterated nonsense. you have multiple ways of handling memory allocation. you can have custom memory management schemes. C standard library pretty much is guaranteed to cause memory fragmentation.
no _standard_ way to specify order of global constructors/destructors
if it's an issue, than don't make them global. there are standard (ie, language guaranteed) ways to control their run order... they come directly from C, btw, so not sure if you know both languages as well as you think
ability to have functors (cludgy syntax and actually misnomer, but it is a huge functionality necessity which is missing from C and is present even in the earliest versions of C++)
rich compile-time semantics
you asked for 3....
The entire story feels like free fsf FUD
No, no, you have it all wrong. FSF is all about free bunnies and sunshine.
It impacts people who care about principle the software they use is based upon.
That's a weird way of saying "no commercial android developers".
It seems that more and more mathematicians are using a new, high level language named "research student".