Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Already approved (Score 1) 69

Yes, it was invented through a fear of learning and incompetence. It's literally designed to handhold the developer and limit the features that are useful, like multiple inheritance and operator overloading. And it certainly didn't (and I would argue, still doesn't) handle resource cleanup especially well - it's not just about freeing memory safely and reliably, which C++ does better than Java, even before smart pointers, but also other resources like locks, instead of relying on the programmer to remember to release locks etc.

Yes, Java has become a bedrock of enterprise development. But that's because enterprise development is boring and enterprises generally don't like to hire competent people or use state of the art technology. That's why enterprises require LTS versions of stuff and stick with J2EE instead of going to EE 7 or whatnot.

Just a few weeks ago, there was an article posted here about Java 8 features like streams and lambdas. The reaction? Most people hated it. Gee, you don't think fear of learning and incompetence may have something to do with it? I, as a C++ developer, learnt Java 8 streams and lambdas and was writing "enterprise code" in a day with it. It was super simple and made complex things super simple, and yet people were nitpicking the syntax only because they were unfamiliar with it but tried to hide their fear by saying "it sucks" etc. I only need to see the attitudes of programmers themselves regarding new features that you can see a culture of fear of learning and incompetence.

Comment Re:Already approved (Score 1) 69

I certainly don't. It played a large part in cementing a culture where programmers learn to hate having to learn advanced parts of a programming language, and then, due to their own limitations and fear of learning, decide it's better to create yet another program language that has its own set of problems that either their parent language had solved in advanced features, or they reinvent the car crash from another language.

Comment Re:Religion of Science (Score 1) 527

But if one does call in, the officials certainly would listen, check the footage for the player the tosser is claiming has an infraction, and decide if it's a prank or not.

Yes, and that's what also happens in science discussions too. People with the knowledge can decide if the person is "pranking" or otherwise unqualified and dismiss their claim. The thing about golf tournaments is that only golf enthusiasts would call in - it's self selecting. But with science, every precious snowflake has decided their ideas are worth as much as someone who dedicate their life to scientific research.

Nobody checks their claims, until the clamor builds to a roar.

Yeah they do. And every crackpot theory has been found wanting, and even debunked multiple times. But all a precious snowflake has to do is to disregard to explanations given and just repeat and repeat. So then the mainstream science crowd are pretty much justified in insulting the peope who, frankly, started the insults first by pretending that their uneducated opinions are equal to scientists.

Comment Re:Religion of Science (Score 1) 527

I'm asking for proof of the claim that "Science" is the only major area:

And yet, as you clearly quoted, that WASN'T the claim, as I clearly said:

science is still the major, if not only

That doesn't claim it's the only. The clue is in the "if not only". Standard English sentence construction.

Comment Unnecessary cushioning (Score 5, Insightful) 130

As these results are based entirely on statistical evidence, not on any direct link between tidal forces and actual quakes, they are quite uncertain and unproven.

Given that the article does not say tidal forces CAUSE quakes, this cushioning is completely unnecessary. They're only noting a suggestion of a link between tidal forces and the magnitude of the quake - not the occurrence/non-occurrence of a quake.

And something being "based entirely on statistical evidence" does not invalidate or weaken anything. It is the quality of the statistical evidence, not the mere use of statistical evidence, that would invalidate or weaken a claim.

Comment Re:Religion of Science (Score 1) 527

Do the golfers, reviewers and tournament officers have to take every single call from a spectator seriously? Or does it count if some random tosser calls in and gives their opinion?

Because if the latter does count, then yes, science has that level of scrutiny. Because we see on Slashdot and in the media, every idiot can comment on Slashdot or appear on or call in to a show and give their opinion on scientific research, regardless of how educated or knowledgeable they are in the area. Everything from string theory to dark matter/energy to AGW to nuclear power or renewable energy.

Comment Re:Major features are complementary (Score 4, Insightful) 427

How about... read the fucking documentation? I'm a C++ guy and always lamented the fact that Java did not have an algorithms equivalent. Java 8 streams + lambdas are almost there and you can achieve complex things without nested loops.

Stop conflating your unfamiliarity with it being shit. It took me, a C++ guy, a day of getting used to it. If you can't wrap your head around that, you shouldn't be programming. It's easy stuff.

Slashdot Top Deals

It seems that more and more mathematicians are using a new, high level language named "research student".