|
i just didnt attend.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:23 |
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:yeah if you can find a "to-do list" projcet on the website for any language or framework do not learn that language or framework This is solid advice. Although now I think I misread you 
tef fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Sep 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
homercles posted:People value two distinct qualities quote:“Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if you don’t have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it’s true. If you hire somebody without [integrity], you really want them to be dumb and lazy.” i tend to look for attitude over ability. as for hard problems, most of coding is trivial problems, made hard. Learning a new API is hard. Debugging is hard. Documentation is hard. Testing is hard. Builds are hard. Versioning is hard. Coding is mostly mashing out the logic and library code to do it. you can get away with writing really dumb code to do what you want. Most of the time, dumb code is fast enough, reasonably bug free. I don't want people to be geniuses, writing ~elegant~ code. I won't understand what the gently caress they are doing. i'm really bad for writing complex things that let me write dumb code. moving all the clusterfuck to one module only gives a superficial simplicity though. sure enough, I want people who can solve hard problems, but often that comes from domain expertise, rather than general knowledge. quote:It's an obvious thing to say but a hard truth most obsessive compulsive programmers won't acknowledge, merely because arbitrarily hard problems are fun to solve. people like showing off. ego driven programming is all too common. thing is, these aren't hard problems. hard problems are things you can spend a lifetime solving, rather than an afternoon or so. quote:People who cannot truly do #2, and fail consistently at #1 because they turn simple things into hard things for the extra challenge are the worst. I may or may not be talking about myself. still, optimizing for fun can be a good thing though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
FamDav posted:Some people just don't listen in their OS and Architecture classes. thank god i was able to substitute my hw class from podunk U in grad school, because the alternative was taking a class taught by a Graeco-Georgian who would start mumbling near the end of every sentence
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
FamDav posted:Some people just don't listen in their OS and Architecture classes. my what now
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
if i wanted to learn about dining philosophers i'd study hospitality
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
and viticulture i guess. philosophers are alcoholics
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
Dining philosophers: the most needlessly overwrought metaphor? I say yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
rotor posted:Dining philosophers: the most needlessly overwrought metaphor? I say yes. yea its really simply and everyone is like, omgggg deadlockssss ugh i feel bad for thinking so many people are stupid, i know im not ridiculously smart but god drat people do you even bother to research or think before you ask me questions??
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
dont you want to learn things instead of just asking me for an answer and blindly accepting it???
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
Sweeper posted:dont you want to learn things instead of just asking me for an answer and blindly accepting it??? ugh, can you just tell me what the right answer is here? i just need to get this project done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
there is this project i worked on that is a java service that makes jni calls down to some libs for processing information. this team in india made, it creates entire new processes that execute the C++ code the jni calls on every request. every single request 4 processes are created and destroyed, not a single one is ever reused. i had to remove some image scaling code because of performance (like a 40ms increase) welp
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
what kind of stupid idiot philosopher can't even figure out the correct number of forks, go get a brain moron
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
Sweeper posted:there is this project i worked on that is a java service that makes jni calls down to some libs for processing information. this team in india made, it creates entire new processes that execute the C++ code the jni calls on every request. every single request 4 processes are created and destroyed, not a single one is ever reused. i had to remove some image scaling code because of performance (like a 40ms increase) best part is that only one processes is ever used per a request, the other three aren't used lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
Panic! At The cisco posted:what kind of stupid idiot philosopher can't even figure out the correct number of forks, go get a brain moron i know right i'm voltaire, i don't need to learn your petty ways of twirling the spaghetti on a fork instead of grabbing a spoon like a dumbass
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
im glad i only read tef's posts in this thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
vapid cutlery posted:im glad i only read tef's posts in this thread tefs posts are literally the only things worth reading in yospos, except maybe the barbarianbob effortposts
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
rotor posted:tefs posts are literally the only things worth reading in yospos, except maybe the barbarianbob effortposts disagree, my posts are a study in beautiful form
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
rotor posted:tefs posts are literally the only things worth reading in yospos, except maybe the barbarianbob effortposts i posts sometimes, too, rotor, don't forget, !
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
rotor posted:tefs posts are literally the only things worth reading in yospos, except maybe the barbarianbob effortposts yea hes smart as heck (tef)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Panic! At The cisco posted:i posts sometimes, too, rotor, don't forget, ! oh that's right! also the sneaking mission posts, although he goes by a new name now, i cant remember off the top of my head what it is though
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
rotor posted:oh that's right! also the sneaking mission posts, although he goes by a new name now, i cant remember off the top of my head what it is though
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
http://www.paulgraham.com/hijack.htmlquote:If you want to defend against hijackings, the problem you're trying to solve is one that programmers know well: the buffer overflow attack. oh paul, I thought code *was* data in lisp
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 11:42
|
|
|
*rides nop-sled into a building*
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 11:45
|
|
|
tef posted:i tend to look for attitude over ability. as for hard problems, most of coding is trivial problems, made hard. He then goes on to list, with no apparent irony, several unnecessarily hard problems that all involve software that someone somewhere mashed out the logic and library code for to just do it. tef posted:Learning a new API is hard. Debugging is hard. Documentation is hard. Testing is hard. Builds are hard. Versioning is hard. Coding is mostly mashing out the logic and library code to do it. Yes, there's no problem with my code to do it, what I want, it's all that other code to do stuff, what someone else managed to think up that's involved that makes everything unnecessarily difficult.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 12:25
|
|
|
tef posted:http://www.paulgraham.com/hijack.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 13:16
|
|
|
rotor posted:Dining philosophers: the most needlessly overwrought metaphor? I say yes. read this as overweight metaphor
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 13:30
|
|
|
tef posted:*rides nop-sled into a building*
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
The aphorism "you can't tell a book by its cover" originated in the times when books were sold in plain cardboard covers, to be bound by each purchaser according to his own taste. In those days, you couldn't tell a book by its cover. But publishing has advanced since then: present-day publishers work hard to make the cover something you can tell a book by. I spend a lot of time in bookshops and I feel as if I have by now learned to understand everything publishers mean to tell me about a book, and perhaps a bit more. The time I haven't spent in bookshops I've spent mostly in front of computers, and I feel as if I've learned, to some degree, to judge technology by its cover as well. It may be just luck, but I've saved myself from a few technologies that turned out to be real stinkers. So far, Java seems like a stinker to me. I've never written a Java program, never more than glanced over reference books about it, but I have a hunch that it won't be a very successful language. I may turn out to be mistaken; making predictions about technology is a dangerous business. But for what it's worth, as a sort of time capsule, here's why I don't like the look of Java: 1. It has been so energetically hyped. Real standards don't have to be promoted. No one had to promote C, or Unix, or HTML. A real standard tends to be already established by the time most people hear about it. On the hacker radar screen, Perl is as big as Java, or bigger, just on the strength of its own merits. 2. It's aimed low. In the original Java white paper, Gosling explicitly says Java was designed not to be too difficult for programmers used to C. It was designed to be another C++: C plus a few ideas taken from more advanced languages. Like the creators of sitcoms or junk food or package tours, Java's designers were consciously designing a product for people not as smart as them. Historically, languages designed for other people to use have been bad: Cobol, PL/I, Pascal, Ada, C++. The good languages have been those that were designed for their own creators: C, Perl, Smalltalk, Lisp. 3. It has ulterior motives. Someone once said that the world would be a better place if people only wrote books because they had something to say, rather than because they wanted to write a book. Likewise, the reason we hear about Java all the time is not because it has something to say about programming languages. We hear about Java as part of a plan by Sun to undermine Microsoft. 4. No one loves it. C, Perl, Python, Smalltalk, and Lisp programmers love their languages. I've never heard anyone say that they loved Java. 5. People are forced to use it. A lot of the people I know using Java are using it because they feel they have to. Either it's something they felt they had to do to get funded, or something they thought customers would want, or something they were told to do by management. These are smart people; if the technology was good, they'd have used it voluntarily. 6. It has too many cooks. The best programming languages have been developed by small groups. Java seems to be run by a committee. If it turns out to be a good language, it will be the first time in history that a committee has designed a good language. 7. It's bureaucratic. From what little I know about Java, there seem to be a lot of protocols for doing things. Really good languages aren't like that. They let you do what you want and get out of the way. 8. It's pseudo-hip. Sun now pretends that Java is a grassroots, open-source language effort like Perl or Python. This one just happens to be controlled by a giant company. So the language is likely to have the same drab clunkiness as anything else that comes out of a big company. 9. It's designed for large organizations. Large organizations have different aims from hackers. They want languages that are (believed to be) suitable for use by large teams of mediocre programmers-- languages with features that, like the speed limiters in U-Haul trucks, prevent fools from doing too much damage. Hackers don't like a language that talks down to them. Hackers just want power. Historically, languages designed for large organizations (PL/I, Ada) have lost, while hacker languages (C, Perl) have won. The reason: today's teenage hacker is tomorrow's CTO. 10. The wrong people like it. The programmers I admire most are not, on the whole, captivated by Java. Who does like Java? Suits, who don't know one language from another, but know that they keep hearing about Java in the press; programmers at big companies, who are amazed to find that there is something even better than C++; and plug-and-chug undergrads, who are ready to like anything that might get them a job (will this be on the test?). These people's opinions change with every wind. 11. Its daddy is in a pinch. Sun's business model is being undermined on two fronts. Cheap Intel processors, of the same type used in desktop machines, are now more than fast enough for servers. And FreeBSD seems to be at least as good an OS for servers as Solaris. Sun's advertising implies that you need Sun servers for industrial strength applications. If this were true, Yahoo would be first in line to buy Suns; but when I worked there, the servers were all Intel boxes running FreeBSD. This bodes ill for Sun's future. If Sun runs into trouble, they could drag Java down with them. 12. The DoD likes it. The Defense Department is encouraging developers to use Java. This seems to me the most damning sign of all. The Defense Department does a fine (though expensive) job of defending the country, but they love plans and procedures and protocols. Their culture is the opposite of hacker culture; on questions of software they will tend to bet wrong. The last time the DoD really liked a programming language, it was Ada. Bear in mind, this is not a critique of Java, but a critique of its cover. I don't know Java well enough to like it or dislike it. This is just an explanation of why I don't find that I'm eager to learn it. It may seem cavalier to dismiss a language before you've even tried writing programs in it. But this is something all programmers have to do. There are too many technologies out there to learn them all. You have to learn to judge by outward signs which will be worth your time. I have likewise cavalierly dismissed Cobol, Ada, Visual Basic, the IBM AS400, VRML, ISO 9000, the SET protocol, VMS, Novell Netware, and CORBA, among others. They just smelled wrong. It could be that in Java's case I'm mistaken. It could be that a language promoted by one big company to undermine another, designed by a committee for a "mainstream" audience, hyped to the skies, and beloved of the DoD, happens nonetheless to be a clean, beautiful, powerful language that I would love programming in. It could be, but it seems very unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
there's plenty of "true hackers" working on java and the jvm, guy is an idiot
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
Win8 Hetro Experie posted:He then goes on to list, with no apparent irony, several unnecessarily hard problems that all involve software that someone somewhere mashed out the logic and library code for to just do it. the implication is that 'solving a hard problem' is people who can 'not invented here' up some savagely optimised algorithms to do it. I then mention several actual hard problems which are not covered by these algorithmic blinkers. quote:Yes, there's no problem with my code to do it, what I want, it's all that other code to do stuff, what someone else managed to think up that's involved that makes everything unnecessarily difficult. people do make things unnecessarily difficult, yes tef fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Sep 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
trex eaterofcadrs posted:there's plenty of "true hackers" working on java and the jvm, guy is an idiot
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
le me, le herping and le derping on le jvm. m_gusta
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
trex eaterofcadrs posted:there's plenty of "true hackers" working on java and the jvm, guy is an idiot working on java yes, working in java no
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
le herp
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
the jvm is written in lua
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Your pull quote literally made me sick to my stomach. What the hell is wrong with Paul Graham? lisp makes you an rear end in a top hat programmer. you're encouraged and enabled to write your own language for each problem, thus isolating you in a world of your own views and ideas. it's a babelian tar pit, luring programmers to their doom. being your own tin pot dictator is quite alluring. you get to go to great feats and neat hacks to get code working. to control and manipulate the code to allow you to write what you want. every new macro and construct shapes the product in your own image and ideals, subsequently alienating other programmers. it's like these language revisionist cranks who want to replace english with their own little concoction that's just ever so perfect and logical. a complete ignorance of social factors. anecdotally, I know of large scale codebases and products in simpler, less elegant languages, meanwhile lisp seems to be popular with the lone hacker aesthetic. eventually, with enough practice, you get to the smug lisp rear end in a top hat stage. this is where you wonder why lisp is unpopular, or fragmented, but assume that it's simply too good for the populace. Classics like 'worse is better' struggle with the notion that lisp maybe isn't that good. Sometimes you get a naggum complex and trot out saphir-whorf. Other people are terrible and that is why they don't use lisp. it can't be that lisp isn't a great idea. or macros aren't a great tradeoff. at least the ruby community is coming to terms with monkey patching coming at the expense of library conflicts. lisp is a strange beast. a simple tool that encourages complexity. purity over utility. a perfect goo waiting for the next hero to shape it and return to the mortal plain with their new, perfect macros.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
or more succinctly, lisp lets rear end in a top hat programmers write rear end in a top hat languages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
tef posted:Sometimes you get a naggum complex and trot out saphir-worf. stealing these names for my star trek fan-fiction
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:23 |
|
|
tef posted:lisp makes you an rear end in a top hat programmer. you're encouraged and enabled to write your own language for each problem, thus isolating you in a world of your own views and ideas. it's a babelian tar pit, luring programmers to their doom. this is why clojure eliminated user defined reader macros
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 17:52
|
|