Something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I've used Perl since the first release, gotten pretty good at it 5-6 times over the years. . .
That's a bit like saying "I've gotten pretty good at riding a bicycle 5-6 times over the years." Once you learn how to ride a bike, if you go back to it after 20 years of not riding it, you still remember how to ride it.
What I'm saying here is that there is a certain depth of the language that is more in the realm of intuition and nature rather than syntax but yet is integral to the language itself. If you achieve that depth, you never have to get good at it again. But if you never reach that depth, like the two years of a foreign language everyone in highschool is required to take and just a few years later can't remember a word of it, you will have to relearn it almost from the beginning.
So in the same sense, I find Perl to be much like riding a bicycle or learning a foreign language. To really say that you have actually learned it, you need to get to a certain depth of mastery in it.
Aha! A Python-eer in Perl-monger clothing!!
O vile Apostate! May your Python 3 and all of its descendents forever live in the shadow of Python 2!
Since the Apostate hath claimed to have been a devotee of Perl, let us, the faithful Perl-Mongers, treat him as the apostate he is and casteth his anonymous screed into the depths of -2 anonymity.
May all the faithful cast aspersions and down-votes upon the vile post of the parent!
Yep. Python uber alles. And you would think that if people have the chops to program in Java or C that they have a pretty good handle on versioning, too. So I think there is a problem with the way the original poster is thinking of the problem.
I have been in the situation where we wanted to introduce versioning to newer or more junior programmers. What didn't work well was the open source solution. We used Subversion; it was quirky and unintuitive for them. (Of course, someone on this forum is going to hotly contest that Subversion is anything but intuitive and easy to use. Well, to that, you probably aren't representative of most programmers, and most likely, neither are your friends, if you have any.) And my experience is that most open source solutions are difficult to use--especially for novices--because they are in fact quirky or require a high level of expertise to use right, or both.
But when we switched to a commercial vendor (in our case, CA's Harvest), the team picked up the versioning system much faster than they did with Subversion. Harvest was more intuitive for them and a LOT less quirks and bugs to deal with. That is, things more often than not worked as they were expected to in Harvest than in Subversion.
So my advice would be to look at some commercial vendor packages, pay them the bucks they are asking for, and enjoy the professional support they give you, the training, and quicker turn-around time for your project deliverables.
For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.
The problem is that women generally have other things of interest in their lives besides coding. Find a way to ruin their social lives, and a few more might just turn to coding instead of chocolate. It's a numbers game.
The other TFA from Wired, not the main one.
If you are a real sci-fi fan and not another SJW who sees sci-fi as just another medium to broadcast his (ahem, "her") cis-gendered religious beliefs, then how can you not love this one from TFA?
--- quote ---
Going forward, he [Beale] said, no matter how the Hugo administrators modify the nominating process to try to prevent manipulation (and there are two proposals being considered), he will still have enough supporters to control future awards. Specifically, “I have 390 sworn and numbered vile faceless minions—the hardcore shock troops—who are sworn to mindless and perfect obedience,” he said, acknowledging that his army wasn’t made up solely of sci-fi fans. On the contrary, “the people who are very anti-SJW said, ‘Okay, we want to get in on this.’” When I asked him how he might deploy those people in the future, he continued, “It’s very simple. The dark lord speaks, the minion acts.”
--- end quote ---
It's about time.
It looks like there is some unaccounted for variance in their design: "The listeners would be asked which audio sample (electronica, male vocal, female vocal, or instrumental) they wanted to audition. The requested sample would then be played through one cable, then we'd swap and repeat per the test protocol."
They should have either made people listen to the same audio sample or made everyone listen to all the samples.
I'm surprised no one's posted this yet.
Actually, I've always been surprised at how reluctant many developers have been to accept regular expressions as a part of their trade. They are very useful shortcuts for string manipulation, and to Perl's credit they defined regex conventions for other languages, like Java and R, to name a couple.
You want to switch a software engineering job paying you 210K / year?
ARE YOU FREAKING CRAZY????
Worked for me, too.
He should have just gone for an arranged marriage.
"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries