Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
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: Well that makes sense (Score 1) 185

I think the issue is that "clean" is in the eye of the beholder.

Sounds good, but utterly untrue. There are plenty of objective criteria by which the clean-ness of code can be assessed. Yes, you get beginner programmers who take an attitude of "That's your way; this is my way - we're both entitled to our opinion." but unless they shed that view point they'll never become competent.

The fact is that to achieve even something as simple as an encapsulated module of code which won't clash with anyone else's code, if you're working in JavaScript you have to jump backwards through hoops to achieve it.

The only reason to use JavaScript is because it's the only language available. It makes producing clean code much harder than it should be - it can be done, but it takes a lot of work.

Comment Re:Well that makes sense (Score 1) 185

We use it because it's pragmatic to use the lingua franca of programming.

Hardly a lingua franca - JavaScript is used because it's the only language web browsers understand.

I've used a lot of programming languages, and I've spent quite a bit of time trying to learn how to write clean JavaScript. It can be done, but the language really doesn't help. You have to fight it every step of the way - a better designed language would help you, not hinder you.

If a decent alternative to JS were suddenly to be supported by all the major browsers, the rush to get away from it would be immense.

Comment Re:AT&T U-verse Central Illinois (Score 1) 243

Why would that approach guarantee that your speed is consistently high, and why would a no-cap method be limited only to "ultra-cheap" ISPs?

Giving everyone a 1TB cap doesn't prevent congestion,

True enough, but you've reversed what I said to try to create a straw man.

Yes, applying a cap doesn't in itself prevent congestion, but what I said was the opposite way around. If ISPs sell a service at a price below the wholesale cost (because the market is driven - at least in this country - very much by "cheap, cheap, cheap") then they need to find some way to make a profit. To begin with they applied caps (whilst pretending they weren't doing), but as that's now become politically unacceptable to the mass market what they do instead is to vastly oversell their capacity, at the same time claiming, "We'll never slow you down". Then when your connection does get very slow, they say it's not them but other users and you shouldn't be so selfish.

I choose to pay a realistic price for my bandwidth, from an ISP who is perfectly clear that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and accept that they do properly provision their capacity (which is why my link stays fast) but that I can't use more than I've paid for. Doubtless they do still oversell - although not nearly to the same degree as the cheap, cheap, cheap merchants do - because there's no way I'm going to use 1TB in a month (typical usage for our house, with a game-obsessed son is about 250G) and they don't oversell enough to affect my connection speed.

You have to accept that there need to be limits somewhere.

Comment Re:AT&T U-verse Central Illinois (Score 1) 243

I rarely go over 60-70GB, but I still don't like the idea of caps. You should be paying for speed, with everyone limited to a percentage of their paid-for speed when there's congestion, while the limit would be increased during low-usage times.

That's how far too many of these ultra-cheap "unlimited" services work. The advertised price is so far below the actual cost of providing what they're claiming to provide that something has to give. The way it's done is to oversell the capacity heavily, and then no-one gets anything like the speed which they paid for, but at least there's no data cap.

I prefer it the way around my ISP does it - I never get near my 1 TB cap, but I can be confident that my speed will stay high all the time.

Comment Re:Not a minicomputer (Score 1) 40

A minicomputer is typically the size of a small fridge,

More the size of a large fridge. A small modern fridge is about the size of a PC. Towards the very end of the mini-computer era, DEC did produce some that kind of size, but your typical mini-computer occupied one to four cabinets, each about 4' or 6' tall. The term mini-computer distinguished them from mainframes, which tended to need a whole room.

Comment Re:Tabs are redundant these days (Score 1) 391

I believe you mean 4.8 MiB, not 4.8 MB.

Back then, the term mibibyte hadn't been invented, but yes, when they were referred to as 4.8 it was a binary and not a decimal unit.

Standard disk size then was 5 MB, which was about 4.8 MiB

When? The disks I'm thinking of came as a removable platter with a published capacity of initially 2.4 MB (or what would now be called mibibytes), increasing with later models to 4.8 MB.

Comment Re:Spaces are for people who don't understand tabs (Score 1) 391

When do you use tabs outside of the beginning of a line? The only time I've seen them elsewhere is when people are trying to align columns. And that's a problem with the editor not properly supporting column formatting, not a problem with tabs.

But how do you expect the editor to support column formatting? That is, not how does the editor effect it on screen, but how does it then save the result in a file?

Contrary to what the OP said, column formatting is precisely the whole point of tabs. That's what they were designed for, going right back into the days of mechanical typewriters.

I agree with OP. Tab-challenged people either never learned how to use them properly and make up arguments to excuse their ignorance/misuse, or just want to force their formatting preferences onto other people.

Bollocks! It's not a question of being tab-challenged, or ignorance or misuse. The whole idea of varying the size of tabs to produce an indent which adjusts to personal preference is terminally broken. Yes, it would theoretically be possible, but it requires incredible discipline from your entire programming team, keeping careful track of something which they can't even see! In practice, it just doesn't work.

As a wise other poster said, tabs work purely in theory - in practice they're a mess.

As soon as people started varying tabs from their default value of 8 spaces they lost their usefulness. Their only real value was as a primitive form of data compression, and it really isn't needed now.

Comment Re:Tabspaces? (Score 3, Insightful) 391

That is one of the most annoying things an editor can do IMO (and if someone has put it as a default in the global .vimrc they need to die a slow painful death). If my next line is in an outer block it means i have to delete the damn indentation which is a lot more labour intensive than putting some in in the first place!

Your average editor which does auto-indentation like this generally has enough smarts to realise it needs to go back a level when you finish a block. You keep typing and your desired and configured indentation just happens.

Even if it didn't (and why would you use an editor which couldn't manage it?) it would still be less work to reduce by one level of indent than to insert N-1 levels.

Slashdot Top Deals

I think there's a world market for about five computers. -- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943