Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:That's going to be tought to prosecute (Score 1) 367

Not only that, our political philosophy, and arguably the only correct one, is to presume the rights exist inherent in your being a human being, preceding any government and independent of it (indeed, often opposed to it), and the government is created by those people, who grant it limited, listed powers over those rights, and no others.

For a high US official to not understand this and claim non-US citizens don't have these rights, these rights we presume pre-exist government in our core political philosophy, is utterly shameful.

Comment Writing, technical and otherwise (Score 1) 380

Wow, you wrote that entire rant over a single letter. That's pathetic.

Language is an art, like painting. Technical language is an art where miscommunication leads to real world problems, and where evidence of lack of expertise leads to well justified lack of confidence up front.

With language, as with painting, you can paint like a master, or you can finger-paint like an addled child.

Which do you think will carry you further in life and in your career? Which do you think will result in more actual pathos?

Comment structs and fundamental OO (Score 2) 313

Just having higher-order functions doesn't make a language a functional language any more than having structs makes C an object-oriented language.

Structs do, however, make the critical aspects of an object oriented approach practical in c. They can carry data, function pointers, etc., and they can be passed around.

I've been writing my c code like that since the 1980's. There are significant benefits.

Comment Hard stuff is, in fact, hard (Score 4, Interesting) 313

I would add to this that reducing the complexity by turning everything into separate functions tends to also increase what I call "opacity by non-locality."

Not only are some things hard, some things benefit from having the logic right there in front of your face; not in a header, not in some function elsewhere, not in a library.

Benefits in both comprehension, and so ease of construction, but also in execution time and smaller executables depending on just how smart the language is in constructing its own executables.

Comment function dictionaries in Python (Score 1) 313

So, for example, by storing functions as values in a dict you can build complex structures of execution without using any conditional codes .

This is the core mechanism of my text markup language. Once the specific built-in tokens are parsed out, they are immediately accessed via the language's function dictionary. This approach is quick, ultimately low-complexity, trivially extensible, and highly maintainable.

Comment Fluid type manipulation with unions (Score 2) 313

Would you consider unions in c a "means to circumvent the type system" as compared to a language with strong up-front typing?

Unions are certainly a very powerful, useful, and concise tool for manipulating data across type boundaries. If you don't have them, in trying to accomplish similar tasks as those unions make easy, in many languages you're going to be a lot more verbose, and likely a lot less efficient, than if you do.

I am assuming competence. Strong typing is a safety net. The need for such a thing varies with one's skill set. The fewer the participants, the more likely it is that the skill sets can be arranged to be similar. With larger teams, the need for safety nets almost always increases.

Comment Poorly understood? (Score 2) 313

If you're using poor coders to maintain very old code then perhaps the choice of programming style is not your biggest problem.

You may have misunderstood the previous poster's use of "poor coder."

I read it as "unfortunate coder", not "incompetent coder."

I could certainly be wrong. Perhaps clarification will be forthcoming.

Comment Re:Glad (Score 3, Informative) 191

If I worked there, I'd, as their computer guy, would be like, let's build an incorruptible and un-bypassable logging system of all access to all data, and exactly what was accessed, along with a physical process whereby the elected officials in Congress on the security committees would review it all. In this way, there could be no G. Gordon Liddy type "special" agents who misuse the data to advantage this or that political faction...

And I'd be quickly shown the door.

Comment Do not do this, please. (Score 1) 254

Science is advancing so rapidly, none of this matters. You should not ameliorate the global warming because if you overdo it, you will induce an ice age, which can start in as little as a year or two (all you need is a summer where the snow doesn't quite melt) and then you will kill billions in less than a year.

We can less predict the tech in 100 years than the people in 1900 could predict today's. We are the people in 1900 trying to fix the problem using their info and their tech. Decimating their own industry would just have slowed getting to today's tech level, benefiting nobody and killing probably a few hundred million due to delayed innovation.

So, even amelioration can be bad, and the downside is magnitudes worse than warming.

Slashdot Top Deals

The bogosity meter just pegged.

Working...