Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re: Dynamic Relational [Re: That's not how it work (Score 1) 203

Interesting. But they do seem like second-class citizens compared to "regular" columns in Maria-DB. It's extra syntax to use them. My approach would allow formality to be incrementally added without changing a column's "type" (mode?) from dynamic to static.

They also seem to require explicit type declarations. I prefer implied or WYSIWYG typing, a bit more like perl's typing model, even if it does complicate comparisons to some degree. (Different readers had diff opinions on how to handle dynamically-typed comparisons. I prefer a symbol next to the comparison operator, such as "#" for numeric: it's short and easy.)

Comment Re: False premise (Score 1) 419

Let me field that answer. They'll use it, just like organizations kept using WinXP pre-SP3, until the new Director of IT came along and said "Are you fucking kidding me?! What incompetent idiot let you stay unpatched and critically open to everything that has come along in the last fucking decade?! Oh, the same one who thought it's a great idea to never upgrade hardware, despite your staff barely surviving on machines that crash daily, or catch fire like those two did last week."

Comment Re:Dynamic Relational [Re: That's not how it works (Score 1) 203

Sounds awfully like Prolog.

Not really. Prolog is mostly a query-like language; I'm not defining a language. SQL, or at least some variant of it, is good enough; no need for users to relearn the entire wheel.

(I've proposed an alternative to SQL, but it's probably not significantly better enough to dethrone the de-facto standard: SQL, for most uses. But that's a different topic.)

Comment Re:Dynamic Relational [Re: That's not how it works (Score 1) 203

Oh dear gods, you want dynamic schema because planning is hard and relational database normalization is too complicated for you. Nobody sees the value in your asinine idea because you're an idiot.

Sometimes planning is hard. I've been in many situations where the customer doesn't quite know what they want yet, and/or some trial-and-error is needed to settle on an optimum design. Think of it as a prototyping tool.

Have you memorized every domain and customer preference in the world?

Comment Re: Dynamic Relational [Re: That's not how it work (Score 1) 203

and there's no distinction between a missing column and one that didn't exist, how does hashing work?

Same way as before. I don't see that as a practical stumbling block, but maybe you have a specific use-case in mind that would muck things up?

Informal categorisation and structuring has its place, but that's an entirely different beast to a relational database.

Indeed with regard to informal structuring: something easy to get going is often useful for prototyping. One can then lock down this tool incrementally as things settle (or migrate to a static RDBMS).

I've been in rather long debates about the definition of "relational database", and found no clear-cut "failure" to match. Language is subject to interpretation.

Anyhow, the idea is to produce a useful tool. It's formal category or definition is secondary to being useful.

Comment Re:We love functional languages except using them. (Score 1) 158

Maybe with enough training and experience, one may be able to pull it off, but a future maintenance programmer may not be able to follow your technique well. It increases the hiring and training burden for your organization.

There are techniques that work better under ideal conditions, but ideal conditions are hard to come by.

Comment Re:Security. (Score 1) 259

For the ICMP thing, I can't imagine how going along with that order from a high-up manager would be "criminally negligent". In fact (I am not a networking engineer BTW), according to my quick research on stackoverflow, networks absolutely *can* work with ICMP blocked, just not well, and it makes it hard to debug some things. A lot of corporate networks seem to be partly broken anyway, and corporate computers running McAfee software are broken but sorta-working too, so running a network this way wouldn't be the end of the world.

Now I should hope that it didn't seem that I was advocating being actually *criminally negligent* in going along with managers' orders. That's an entirely different level. Going along with the company shooting itself in the foot (after documenting it well so you can CYA when the SHTF, and after raising an initial objection but caving after management insists) is entirely different from going along with orders to do something outright criminal. I only advocate not going to heroic lengths to help the company avoid shooting itself in the foot when its own high-up management is insisting on it, because most likely it's just going to result in your termination. If they're ordering you to do criminal things, you need to go to the police or other government authorities, and simultaneously start looking for a new job.

Comment Re:There will be no train (Score 1) 373

"Now add in 90 minutes at the airport before and after which don't exist on trains. Now add in the extra pollution and carbon usage of the planes. Now add in lower prices because rail is cheaper to run and uses less gas. Now add in the lower congestion at airports because some percentage is now using rail. You end up with a trip that's cheaper, barely if at all longer, more comfortable, less polluting, and improves things for everyone else too. I'm very glad to have voted for it."

Extending the rail between LAX and Union Station would be a hell of a lot cheaper, disrupt far fewer neighborhoods (and the court battles have only just started to rumble as track approaches the San Fernando Valley). And it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to streamline security.

Further, Amtrak suggests one arrive at least 30 mins prior to train boarding. Earlier for busy stations. The train will be more expensive than air, will cost immensely more to build than we were told and displace a *LOT* of lower income homes. I'm very glad to have voted against it.

Comment Re:Compre to Boston's Big Dig (Score 0) 373

I think its about time for you to declare your interest, dont you think?
As you are quite obviously an involved party..

Now, just to correct your statement:
- years of studies by many different groups who stand to profit by this, that all suggest the project will be feasible and useful and very very highly profitable...' -

Sorry, but we all know how these things run now. Defense of them makes you either a card carrying moron, or financially advantaged by them.

Slashdot Top Deals

Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position. -- Christopher Marlowe