|
I've gotta say that the only response that comes to mind is: "Grow a pair, you bluddy nancy!"
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Harassment! I'm being harassed! I need an adult! 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
In your case: Grow three!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine a bot on your work computer that tracks your every click and keystroke, helping determine which of your tasks could be handled by one of its robot brethren. "The Terminator's an infiltration unit: part man, part machine. "
|
|
|
|
|
Only worry when someone invents an AI snark algorithm which is actually funny.
|
|
|
|
|
A robot that automatically fills in the timesheet would yield a higher ROI, but makes a lousy headline.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
That's actually a bloody good idea!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
MSRC engineer: Since 2015, only 40% of zero-days were successfully used against the latest Windows versions. There's safety in updates
Ignoring the fact that keeping it up-to-date often breaks something else. But hey, good news, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Still... 40% ? 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Grade them on a curve - it’s Windows 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Grade them on a curve - it’s Windows
Apple holds the patents for curves.
You have to grade windows on 32x32px squares.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The casualty rate of useful stuff that worked fine before updates, but doesn't after, is so ridiculously high that it does not in the least surprise me that some malware doesn't work, either.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
On Tuesday (July 23) at about 2:47 p.m. EDT (1847 GMT), a motor onboard the small LightSail 2 cubesat began deploying the mission's 344-square-foot (32-square-meter) solar sail, which is about the size of a boxing ring. "Look who's all grown up, black swanning about the solar winds"
|
|
|
|
|
US Federal Trade Commission today imposed a record breaking $5 billion penalty on Facebook for violating the 2012 FTC order by deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information. I think they already have
Just not in the direction it should be
|
|
|
|
|
Why it’s time to move on from OOP "OOPs!...I did it again"
|
|
|
|
|
A bunch of opinions but nothing to back it up. Hilarious. I get this a lot from people who don't really get OOP.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Functional programming:
1. Is older than object-oriented programming
2. Is well-known and well-practiced in academic settings, where people first learn programming
3. Has been constantly pushed for the past four decades to become mainstream for enterprise development
4. Has official support in both the Java and .NET ecosystems
5. Still only manages to be used as a side technology for special cases
Horse-and-car = Wrong analogy.
|
|
|
|
|
Tl;dr I don't understand OOP and am paid by the word to whine about something, so the OOP windmill it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: There’s no objective and open evidence that OOP is better than plain procedural programming.
Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha! Ha ha! Ha ha ha ha! Ha! Ha ha! Ha ha! Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha! Ha ha ha ha. Ha!
Sorry, this guy's an idiot. I've seen C code. I've seen C++ code. C++ took what was going to be a thousand-plus-line C function and made it into two-hundred, through the magic of virtual functions. It was so much easier to understand the logic it wasn't even funny.
tldr - wouldn't hire Ilya Suzdalnitski for any coding needs.
|
|
|
|
|
And for a real question, after my initial laugh.
I've read several intros to functional programming. Nothing I've read answers the question, "How do real-world functional programs handle changes to huge-size data-blocks without clobbering memory?"
In other words, say you create a word processor. The functional programming explanations I've seen indicate you have a 'document' in memory that might be 2 MB. If you add a letter to the document via a keystroke, in order to keep it immutable, you need to generate an entirely new 2 MB block with the added character, which becomes the 'new' document. The program always updates to that 'new' document, in order to eliminate mutability.
Something has to be wrong with my understanding, because if that is the case functional programming cannot handle real-world word processors and other editing chores because it will just start shuffling around huge blocks of memory, trashing the cache and becoming slow as dog poo in snow.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: In other words, say you create a word processor. The functional programming explanations I've seen indicate you have a 'document' in memory that might be 2 MB. If you add a letter to the document via a keystroke, in order to keep it immutable, you need to generate an entirely new 2 MB block with the added character, which becomes the 'new' document. The program always updates to that 'new' document, in order to eliminate mutability.
One way might be to divide the document into smaller portions (e.g. paragraphs), each immutable, and a list of paragraphs. Updating a keystroke would then consist of (a) making a new copy of the paragraph, and (b) making a new copy of the list, which points to the new paragraph.
Nowhere does it say that all the data in a functional program must consist of a single block.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
interesting link. Thanks
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.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
