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: Not so innocent after all (Score 1) 92

Pretty much my experience of having to go to church as a kid. There were a few fanatical true believers, and everyone else did it because of some variant of Pascal's Wager. I finally dropped out of the whole thing when I was sixteen, not for any noble reason but mainly because I wanted to smoke and have sex, but even at that age at least part of the reason for my rejection was that my family's church had absolutely absurd beliefs, in particular their view on evolution. I had secretly accepted evolution since I was nine years old and had read a book in the school library on the evolution of humans from Australopithecus onward, but nine year olds don't have the personal authority to tell their parents and their religious authorities that they're all full of shit, whereas a sixteen year old has the right combination of hormones and hubris to brazenly tell everyone "Your beliefs are beyond absurd, and border on the criminally idiotic."

It might have gone a bit differently if I were raised in a more mainstream church like Catholicism, Lutheranism or Anglicanism, where they do try to keep the idiocy to a minimum, but in the more wingnut Protestant churches, the maniacal stupidity just drove me away. At the end of it I became I guess what one would describe as a "weak atheist" bordering on agnostic. I know the existence of Yahweh can never be disproven, but I see absolutely no reason at all that such a being need be invoked, and whenever I see Yahweh invoked by Christians, Muslims and Jews, it's often to justify something noxious, or to prop up the weak-minded who need constant reminders that prostrating themselves to the deacon now means eternal salvation.

Comment Re:Tables are turning (Score 1) 399

What hysteria? The arctic was 30 degrees above seasonal norms this winter. The fact is that CO2 has the properties it has, and that means you increase PPM of CO2 you trap more energy in the lower atmosphere. The universe doesn't care about your desire to declare anyone who says anything that makes you feel uncomfortable a "hysteric". AGW is an inevitable consequence of physical laws, and not the state of Wyoming or Donald Trump can do even the tiniest thing to alter those physical laws. Don't want to totally fuck up the Earth's climate by 2100, then stop burning fossil fuels.

Comment Re:welcome to *public* utilities (Score 1) 399

No, in a free market, competition keeps prices down.

Nope. Average price in Europe in 2015 was $0.20/KW. It was $0.12/KW in the US.

Seriously, do some background research.

I can't find any research that shows that Internet connectivity in the US is more reliable or relatively cheaper than electricity. If you have some research that you'd like to share.

Comment Re:One obvious improvement (Score 1) 183

Yeah but at least with Add I know that a function is being called, whereas overloaded operators are exactly and specifically designed to make operations that have "normal" functionality pre-defined as part of the language, actually do something else, without any indication at the point of usage that this is occurring.

Sure if you are intimately familiar with the types involved you will not be caught off-guard very often. But "it doesn't usually bite you if you know what you're doing" is not a great argument for a language feature if you ask me.

I have written code with matrix math and I actually found it clearer to spell out what's going on more explicitly than to use overloaded operators. But that's a personal choice for sure.

Comment Re:One obvious improvement (Score 1) 183

The index() form makes it very clear that a function is being called.

Overloaded [] does not.

Pretty simple really.

The worse of all is overloaded ->, which is an operator which can normally be applied to a dereferenceable type, so you would really have no idea to even look for an overloaded operator to see if something unexpected is happening, versus [] which if you know the type is not a C style array, must be an overloaded operator.

In my experience, if there are bad paradigms available in the language, people will use them, even celebrating their ability to do something "clever" and obtuse, and eventually they will make their way into the code base. Very often it may not even be in your code base, that you have control of, but in some open source software that you have to read and understand.

Absolutely, the intelligent and rational use of language features is the responsibility of the programmer; but it's pragmatic to recognize that in a world of imperfect programmers, it's better to not have language features that generally lead to hard to understand code.

Comment Re:One obvious improvement (Score 1) 183

a + b for complex types isn't really the trouble, since we know that the compiler can only accept that syntax if the + operator has been overloaded.

What's worse is overloading [] or -> and competely fooling the programmer who has no way of knowing, without exhaustively scanning all source files, whether or not those operators are doing something unusual.

Information hiding. It's bad.

Slashdot Top Deals

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."