Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Coding is a profession with a long term future (Score 1) 501

What stack ?

I've done a lot of things. I've somewhat specialized in security of the cryptographic sort, but I've done embedded work, web sites (LAMP, J2EE, other stuff), networking (network drivers, worked on a reverse proxy, even wrote a TCP stack back in the day), point of sale systems, and a lot more. These days I work on Android, but that may change in the next year or two.

Comment Re: While its not my cup of tea (Score 1) 632

So you get rid of the guy who was happy working with the "team" even though he obviously knew his own mind, and probably realised others wouldn't approve of his choices, so he tried to keep it a secret?

My comment wasn't about right or wrong; but how would you handle a situation where you could either choose to do what you think is the morally right action, or let the whole project disintegrate? Sometimes there are no good options, you have to choose which bad option you will run with. There are problems that can't be solved.

Why not get rid of the people who are so intolerant of other people's fantasies that it affects their ability to function in a team? Or would that result in firing a woman - a social taboo that would see every sjw on the planet get triggered.

And will that always work? What if you are responsible for a hugely important project, and it turns out that the whole team can't tolerate one member - in your example, the woman? There is no universal, right formula for solving many problems. But you, as the responsible manager, are required to make a choice. Which will it be?

Comment Re:What makes an engineer in the US? (Score 2) 501

On the other hand, even without a government seal of approval, there are highly-skilled programmers in the world who have written lots of important and well-respected code that runs critical systems and does it very well. These are clearly worth of the name software engineer. The same applies to certain people who do software architecture, and deserve the label software architect.

So it's not that software engineering doesn't exist, or isn't a valid title, the only issue is that there's no defined standard by which to judge whether an individual merits the label.

Comment Re:I'll document it tomorrow (Score 1) 501

and "anybody can understand this by just looking at it, it doesn't need to be explained."

I beg to differ with this one. Code can be so clear and readable that no further documentation is required. It's just that writing such code is hard work, and never happens by accident.

After your code is complete, all tests pass, etc., take another pass and look for anything that isn't clear. Whenever you find a section that seems to benefit from an explanatory comment, try to rewrite it so that the comment is no longer needed. In many cases, this is as simple as moving the bit of code to a well-named function -- essentially you're replacing the comment with the function name. In other cases, renaming variables, or introducing new variables explicitly so that you can provide them with good names does the job. In other cases reordering/restructuring the code so that it has a more linear progression, and addresses subproblems in a logical and consistent way is needed. And sometimes, at the end of all that, there's some part that just requires a comment. In that case, add it, but only after exhausting all other options.

Then, let the code alone and do the same thing again tomorrow when your eyes are fresh. Then get a peer to review it (you're doing code reviews anyway, right?), and get their suggestions as to what isn't clear and obvious. Along the way, keep an eye out for bits of code that are clarified only by function and variable names, and look for ways to ensure that the function can't easily be changed in ways that invalidate the chosen names. Rinse, repeat until you reach the point that no more improvements can be found.

If this sounds like a lot more work than just writing an explanatory comment, you're damned right it is. But it's also much better, because, other than docsctrings, which are great, comments are evil. Over time, code evolves and comments tend not to get updated. I'd much rather maintain hard-to-read code with no comments than hard-to-read code with comments that are wrong. And in easy-to-read code, comments are pointless at best and a waste of time at worst, because experienced developers know that you can't just trust that the comment is correct, you also have to read the code.

Comment Re: Internet Rape (Score 1) 490

Trump's not perfect, but at least he rejected both parties. You need to learn to appreciate that, and stop getting herded around like sheep.

You don't think you are being treated like sheep by the bully? Trump behaves like he was the Emperor of China - and with as much competence as they generally had just before they were overthrown - but as we can all see, he is only a mandarin (*wink* *wink*, did you see what I did there?)

Comment those are taxiways (Score 1) 321

Look more closely at the diagram.

The dual-circles around the buildings are taxiways. (Notece that, in addition to being far narrower than an airplane and too close in, they're also not circular, but have a flattened area at the right side, making it more like a "D" than an "O".

The runways are the wide, straight, "roads", of which you see just a tiny chunk at the very boundary of the picture. They're essentially tangent to the taxiways - slightly out from them.

This is just a standard airport designs with straight runways.

Comment Re:Robots, robots everywhere! (Score 1) 369

Oh so your ultimate answer is taxation on the AI/robotic overlords in order to feed the masses?

Again, your ignorance blinds you.

Dude, tone down the rhetoric. It really doesn't facilitate rational discussion. Unless your goal isn't to have a rational discussion but just to make yourself feel good by spewing doom. In that case, I guess you're succeeding, but I have no motivation to participate further.

You assume that taxation has been the ultimate answer today, as trillions sit in offshore tax havens, driven by billionaire-funded lobbyists who manipulate governments into funding this kind of Greed. I fail to see how this shit situation will ever change in the future. The end result will be UBI being funded at the lowest legal level, which will essentially mean Welfare 2.0 for the planet.

The problem with money sitting offshore is caused entirely by the foolish decision to tax corporate income. Drop the corporate taxes -- or even reduce the rate significantly -- and that money will come flooding back, because it's not actually doing its owners any good offshore. Instead tax the shareholders on their gains. They can't so easily hide offshore because they actually want to live here.

Comment Re:Robots, robots everywhere! (Score 1) 369

paid for by taxing the owners of the capital infrastructure (i.e. the robots) that do all of the production

You're making a crazy assumption that the owners of the infrastructure will agree to voluntarily pay taxes in order to support useless masses.

As long as the masses have the vote, and therefore the ability to command police and military forces, there's no "voluntary" about it. That said, as long as there's still room for making more money, even with the taxes, they'll do it.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 369

Fine, a massive capital gains tax on dividends, on resource extraction licenses, and a massive tax on any income over $500,000, including any "interest-free loans", shares, and any other financial instrument.

Rather than a flat "over $500K", the scale should be graduated, up to very high rates at the top end. Also, it's worth noting that interest-free loans, etc., are already treated as income by the IRS.

If you think taxing corporations is bad, then tax the living fuck out of those that are making the money.

You make it sound punitive. No need for that. In fact, you want to be careful not to remove the incentive for generating even high

Oh, and repeal all corporate personhood. All shareholders will be liable for the misdeeds of the corporation, up to and including imprisonment for death and injury a corporation causes, and seizure of shareholders' assets in the case of insolvency or financial penalty beyond current cash and asset reserves.

Oh, hell no. I'm a shareholder and so are you if you have any kind of retirement investments. There are very good reasons for limiting shareholder liability. If you want to hold someone criminally liable for severe misdeeds, the target you want is the executives who ordered the misdeeds, not the shareholders.

Comment Re:It doesn't take 7 billion people (Score 1) 369

But keep in mind that not all civilizations are technological. Humanity existed for 250K years without computers.

Not in any lifestyle that I would want to live. Nor that I'd call "civilization", at least not for any but the top 0.01%. The GP mentioned millenia of dark ages... but the dark ages were actually significantly better for the average human than earlier ages -- including the peaks of the earlier great civilizations, all of which were built on the backs of vast numbers of slave laborers. Serfdom sucked, but it was better than slavery. Serfs had more rights, were better fed, etc.

I don't disagree with your basic argument, just the part that pre-technological civilization wasn't so bad. It was bad. But there's absolutely no reason to think we're going back to it. The robots are going to dramatically improve productivity yet again and, combined with ongoing technological advancement, usher in an age of abundance in which there aren't enough jobs because there's simply no need for everyone to work. I'm confident humanity will be able to find other ways to keep itself occupied.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your fault -- core dumped

Working...