PommeDeTerre

6 ms·

1.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
What you say is very true. Furthermore, there's no guarantee that code associated with somebody's GitHub account was actually written by that individual. It's useless to gauge the ability of a developer based on code in his o
2.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
If that misconception is the "only one thing" you know about getting a certification, then why do you feel it appropriate to comment on the process? You don't need to buy the books in order to pass the certification exams. Ex
3.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
That approach could have unintended consequences, though. A department could just cut back on the services they provide, in order to cut back on their spending, to stay well within their budget. If these services are critical, then that may
4.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
What you propose may sound great and easy in theory, but in practice it's usually a huge disaster. The truly useful code of the application will quickly become overwhelmed by the code that tries to abstract away the high-level abstract
5.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
Wouldn't your own personal pre-peer-review review have caught that?
6.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
We may not use GNOME today, but many of us did happily use it before the GNOME 3 disaster. After that happened, though, we had no choice but to move to other environments. Some of us even hoped that maybe someday the situation would reverse
7.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
That's sort of a useless distinction to make, in practice. If jQuery isn't usable as-is, then it could very well be said that this problem is at least partially due to using jQuery. Having to play games with jQuery to strip out or
8.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
There was no SQL Server 2003. Do you mean 2005?
9.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
That platform already exists. It's the "platform" that naturally happens when there aren't any "app stores" or "app marketplaces", and when devices aren't artificially crippled to prevent users f
10.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
What makes you think that "no one had objections about Apple and Amazon doing so"? Lots of people did. Lots of people have been quite vocal in their dislike of the so-called "walled garden" practices of various organizat
11.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
The universal behavior is to consistently behave inconsistently?
12.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
I think that you may be vastly overestimating the number of web and mobile app developers. They're still a relatively small proportion of all software developers. While web developers may be more vocal and have more content on the web
13.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
There's nothing "snarky" about pointing out stupidly and inexcusably broken programming language features.
14.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
The people you refer to as "haters" are usually just professional software developers. As professionals, they don't stand for the unjustifiable inferiority exhibited thoroughly by PHP and JavaScript. So of course they'll
15.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
I wouldn't say that Crockford really "explored JavaScript's good parts". Rather, he just covered parts of JavaScript that shouldn't be used, and whatever wasn't completely broken was considered to be "good
16.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
A bad programming language that remains bad for nearly two decades isn't really any better, in my opinion, than a bad language that undergoes some change that may have mixed results in the end. JavaScript is bad. PHP is bad. They'
17.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
I wouldn't say so. It's far, far closer to a functional programming language than JavaScript is, for instance. But it's clearly nowhere near what Haskell or Standard ML are, either. Maybe "semi-functional" would be
18.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
Syntax is highly important, however. A poor syntax can make an otherwise decent language quite unbearable. A nice syntax doesn't make an otherwise poor language good, either.
19.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
Support for higher-order functions is obviously a minimal requirement of a "functional programming language". But functional programming extends far, far beyond that. It also embodies a philosophy emphasizing the purity of such fu
20.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
Is that really a good comparison? The PHP code you linked to is basically a class with a bunch of getters and setters. The Python code, on the other hand, handles numerous real-world HTTP requests that do actual work. So it's not unexp
21.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
Not every Python user uses Django, you know. I've worked on a number of software systems at several different organizations that have very effectively used Python 3 for years now. I think that Python 3 has been adopted perfectly fine b
22.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
Enough with the "JavaScript is a functional language" myth, please. Merely having first-class functions does not make a language a functional programming language. JavaScript does not promote the use of pure functions, referential
23.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
Deprecation of those awful vendor specific DB extensions is a good start, no doubt. But those are library functions, rather than language features. Another thing to consider is that PHP developers have a track record of deprecating certain
24.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
What you say is very true. PHP is in the same boat that JavaScript is in. Their very severe, yet very inherent, language flaws just cannot be covered up with one library or framework after another. The only real option is to give up backwar
25.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
Languages like Haskell and Python being suitable for many applications in no way changes the fact that there are many other situations where they would not be suitable, and a language like C++ would be needed. Keep in mind that there are al
26.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
Rust has the most potential at being a true successor to C++. But it's not very usable at the moment (it suffers from far too much change within the language and standard libraries), and it will still take a lot of work before it is a
27.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
C++ is a tool for power users, not a popularity contest. Changes to the language should not be done just to attract more users. This is especially true if these new users would be today's PHP, JavaScript and Ruby users. The C++ communi
28.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
True, that could very well explain its horrid state in mid-1995. But that was 18 years ago, and things really haven't gotten any better since then. The Harmony work is somewhat of a step in the right direction, but its impact will stil
29.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
C++, Java and JavaScript each have their own different kinds of complexities. The complexities of C++ almost always arise out of the extremely high degree of power and flexibility it offers programmers. The complexities of Java end up havin
30.
by PommeDeTerre 13y ago
People who "hate on JavaScript" tend to know the language very well. They also know at least several other languages very well. This knowledge makes JavaScript's many flaws much more obvious, and much less justifiable. The ba

More ›