Ignore ooloorie, he has a very long history of jumping onto issues he does not understand to troll.
The deuce, you say.
I've been a perl programmer for decades, and the number of hours I've spent debugging issues with automatic type conversion are in the single digits, and the number of problems I've encountered with string-to-numeric conversion is literally zero
How nice for you. You must not be writing very interesting or complex software.
On more complex software you tend to use an object system that does additional type-checking for you (usually "Moose", "MooX" or possibly "Mouse"... like I said about lack of standardization...).
But I'm completely serious about this point: the perl culture has never been fanatic about the way it does things, and there are any number of issues where it was decided that things were too loose and needed to be tightened up: string-to-number conversions are emphatically *not one of them*. They don't even throw a warning, not even running with "use warnings" on (you heard of strict and warnings, right? In your 20 years of experience?).
There's something profoundly weird about the strong-typing-or-death fanatics... they've got a bad case of obsessive compulsive disorder and using a string as a number drives them up the wall, even though it *never* causes any problems. Verily, not even you in your 20 years of experience can cite a case where it caused any problems for you.
My understanding is that it used to be the fastest dynamic language around, but some others have caught up to it-- it's not something I care about really, I just know it's fast enough I don't need to think about the issue.
I more interested in the fact that it's unicode support is better than almost every other language.
Perl has a much weaker type system, allowing expressions like (3 + "3"). That affects both efficiency and correctness of programs.
I've been a perl programmer for decades, and the number of hours I've spent debugging issues with automatic type conversion are in the single digits, and the number of problems I've encountered with string-to-numeric conversion is literally zero, and if you were burned by something like that in production, I'd ask you why you weren't writing tests.
There are indeed some odd issues you need to deal with when working with perl5, but they almost all revolve around a lack of standardization. There's something profoundly weird about perl critics, they continuously just *make shit up* to fit their narrative...
America isn't a direct democracy and never was. It's a constitutional republic. You vote to tell your electoral college member how to place their vote (yes there have been faithless electors, but it has been rare).
Rare, but nevertheless allowed, and built-in to the system for a reason (and I keep wondering who invented that phrase "faithless"...).
Once again, if you guys want to change the system, feel free to try for that, but quit pretending the system is something different than it is.
I think infinite web pages was the worst idea that every site just had to copy to be part of the fad.
Well, like I keep saying these days: In a world where vinyl LPs can make a comeback, there may still be some hope for web standards.
Flat isn't necessarily a problem, but having no borders at all could be.
I'm not gonna argue about that one. I insist on using a light-on-dark color scheme myself, and half of the time those clevely designed buttons are literally invisible. I often make a guess that there's something to click on in a blank space that I see, and just try it experimentally.
I'm a perl programmer, almost by definition I don't get hired by places that insist on chasing the new shiney.
The tendency of programmers in general to be as trendy as a bunch of teenagers has not been lost on me, however (like I said, I'm a perl programmer).
Somewhat more disturbing is a tendency of perl-culture in general to be a bit faddish... one year it's inside-out objects, the next year it's the Moose family, one year Module::Build is the greatest, the next Extutils::Makemaker has made a comeback and no one wants to hear about anything else, one year ORM are the bees-knees, the next it's the NoSQL fad, then it suddenly dawns on people you don't really want to try to do schemaless data...
Obviously the phones just need to look around and track the people in the immediate environment, and report it back to their central control.
It's a safety feature.
(They could also summon a hit-man to take out phoney-drivers before they kill someone-- but I must not think bad thoughts, even if I am a cyclist who's tired of looking to the right and seeing the guy passing me too close staring down at a little glowing box.)
We end up using our phones when going anywhere in her car.
Here's an idea: look at the map-- online or not-- figure out how to get there, then *store the information in your head*.
You need to do a little better than foxnews if you want to talk to someone who hasn't already drunk your koolaid.
We don't know one millionth of one percent about anything.