|
Rust sounds appealing from what little I've read. Kind of a stripped down C++ but a bit paternalistic? Maybe someone who's investigated it in more detail can weigh in.
Julia, I had to look up. Good for numerical analysis and other weenie things?! It takes all kinds.
Anyway, you can't kiss all the girls. I'll cleave to the one I have. 
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Rust sounds appealing from what little I've read. Kind of a stripped down C++ but a bit paternalistic?
I started trying to learn Rust and stopped. It's very, very fiddly and, to be absolutely honest, I find the syntax overly boggling.
It's gonna be big (especially if Microsoft make it part of Visual Studio, as is possible in due course) and I know I should know it but I wish I didn't have to.
|
|
|
|
|
Imho:
TypeScript
Kotlin
Java
C#
C
C++
Go
Swift
D (if you don't mind being an outsider)
Rust
|
|
|
|
|
TypeScript IS NOT A LANGUAGE!
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a framework/class library that sits on Javascript. It is not a language in and of itself.
JQuery isn't a language either. It's a framework that sits on Javascript.
Neither is MVC.
People/pundits like to play fast and loose with the nomenclature, and more often than not, they're wrong.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
It's 7 AM, pardon the lingering brain fuzz and the excessive use of quotes and the "if you don't get what I'm trying to say then you don't get programming."
"We" have been "programming" for what, 70+ years now. And the descent continues, that "programming" somehow means learning the "language." Do we, that know better, not hear the echo of our own screams when the light of the editor shines upon the dark recesses of code to reveal the lurking monsters bred from those that have simply "learned the language?"
When will people who write articles like this learn that it isn't "what you say", it's "how you say it" that is important!
|
|
|
|
|
Could have been posted as a rant, but I agree with your sentiment. It should be possible to describe a good design in a way that is language agnostic, although assumptions about procedural vs. object-oriented vs. functional could creep in.
However, some languages are more suited than others to certain types of applications. And some types of applications are on the ascent, and others are on the descent. This will speak to what languages are good to learn now, but learning a language won't fix a lack of either design skill or experience with the domain in question.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Could have been posted as a rant,
Frankly, that describes most of my posts. 
|
|
|
|
|
With more people working from home during the pandemic, the boundaries between job and life are blurred. We're sorry. The blurb you have requested is disconnected. Please try again later.
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't know how to manage the work/life balance then that's YOUR problem. But it is the EU so apparently they do need a regulation telling them to turn off their computers at days end.
'Murica, at least some part of it anyway.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
The EU is rife with micromanaging dirigistes. At least the Brits had the sense to (supposedly) bid it adieu. TARGET2, anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
MarkTJohnson wrote: If you don't know how to manage the work/life balance then that's YOUR problem
I can understand your point, but...
Not all people have the luck of having a job like ours, or the confidence we have to find another job or many other relevant factors... and this kind of laws is to protect them.
In Germany there is an upper limit of 10.5 work hours a day. And a minimum of 11 hours between end of one work day and start of the next one.
It is law and there controls and punishments, but some companies still force workers to work over that time limits.
And at home, there are less possibilities to control it. At least, this way some people might get a bit more courage to say "no", because they are backed up by law.
That said... Only because it might be meaningful, it doesn't mean it is a good idea or that it will be implemented correctly. And in this, I 100% agree with you. Bunch of bureaucrats...
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and no.
I've worked at places where everyone had their business email on their phone.
It means that when you're at home in the evening you get bothered with customer requests and problems that don't need direct attention, but that still get your mind going.
I had one coworker who couldn't let anything pass.
If he got an email late at night he'd fix it and go to bed late (this guy was also highly incapable and highly toxic, but that's a different matter).
Personally, I don't really mind, so I got it set up on my phone as well, until I suddenly got a message on my phone that my company wanted to access my phone with the ability to completely brick it in case I lost it (and so lost my company email too).
Being the only person there who did not have a company phone, specifically for this reason, I simply deleted my work email and life actually got more relaxed 
Been there twice!
Mind you, I had a steady job with good pay, so I could afford being a bit cross.
Not everyone can, will or dare to say "no" to their employer.
Employers expect you to read your email, even outside of work times.
They expect you to be reachable.
If it was up to them you'd always be thinking about work.
This law is just a means to put an end to that and I can get behind it.
I have my own business now though, so I must be reachable 24/7
|
|
|
|
|
Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have created a plane which flights without propellers or jet engines, meaning it uses no fuel. Clap your hands if you believe you can fly!
Feels vaguely like a repeat, but Chris wouldn't suggest an item I've posted before, would he?
"Uses no fuel", so I guess the 40,000 V potential needed comes from pixie dust and fairy flatulence.
I'm also not sure what the lift on a 2.45kg plane might be.
Still, dancing pigs and progress and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Into the 27-mph wind, the groundspeed had been 6.8 mph, for a total airspeed of 34 mph. The brothers took turns flying three more times that day, getting a feel for the controls and increasing their distance with each flight. Wilbur's second flight - the fourth and last of the day – was an impressive 852 feet in 59 seconds.
Quote: Scientists have carried out 10 test flights of the aircraft, in which the plane flew around 60 metres in 12 seconds.
Wilbur and Orville are not impressed.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Still, dancing pigs and progress and all that.
Kids don't start running the 100m mark or a marathon the first day... do they?
I see your point, but the opened possibilities might still be interesting for the future.
I.e. if getting energy from water with cold fusion got real (and I do expect / hope it to get real), then this technology could suddenly be pretty relevant.
Kent Sharkey wrote: I'm also not sure what the lift on a 2.45kg plane might be.
I see your point, but again... 1st day in gym, lifting 100 kg is not a good idea.
Besides... I think the most important aspect is the power of the motors, not the weight of the plane.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Being the CTO of Microsoft Azure has its privileges, and that includes stress testing a 24 Terabyte Azure node by playing Tetris on it. "It's good to be the king"
|
|
|
|
|
But... does it run doom?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't the TS cloud, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft today announced the launch of a new offering for its mission-critical Azure Government cloud targeted at government customers and partners that regularly work with top-secret classified data. It's the same cloud, but with a "Private, don't look" label on it
This isn't going to end well, is it?
|
|
|
|
|
If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.
|
|
|
|
|
"Having nothing to hide" is very much culturally dependent. MS insists on (rather conservative) US morals and social norms restricting whatever they store in their cloud. Material perfectly acceptable in the culture of the owner has been forbidden by MS, even when protected by a password limiting general access.
For the cases I know of, the MS censorship has related to photos. I see no reason why it should equally well apply to textual expressions.
I am reluctant to hire an apartment from a landlord telling me which are appropriate thoughts and ideas to have within the apartment.
|
|
|
|
|
True, but this is secret government data, some of which will be far worse than anything that other customers would store. But it'll be encrypted, so MSFT won't know the contents, and other customers could do the same. Anyone putting sensitive stuff in the cloud, unencrypted, is asking for the big one.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
