PythonicAlpha

> another 12,804 pull themselves out of it

That does only take the possibility of "pulling themselves out of it" into regard as possibility to get out of the statistics. I can think of several other ways to get out of the statistics: E.g. Dying, moving into an other area ...

I accept, that the numbers are not complete and somehow misleading, but simple conclusions are too!

Thank you. I am sorry, I am no native speaker!

Unfortunately, I can not change the post any more.

Than you might not have seen good OOP designs. My experience is different -- when you really apply good OOP design to software, you can reduce complexity and come to a clearer overall design. But of course the typical 5 day Java or C++ course will not get you there. You must learn to think in OOP -- and that is a process that might take years.

Managers who think, there is a silver bullet, always scare me!

"All evidence" seems to me a real gross overstatement here. The author collected some topics, where he means that OOP is bad and sticks some (partly related) statements of other people to it and wants to convince with that, even when he makes some valid points here [1].

I do not buy that.

The reality is, that when OOP is correctly executed (and there is the real culprit, since few people have really understand it!) it really can help you to lower the complexity of programs -- and that is decisive, not some halve-religious statements.

[1] One example: Inheritance vs. Composition -- even OOP people have seen the problem that overuse of inheritance is bad. But they don't throw the whole thing out of the window, but tell where to use it or restrict its usage. Don't just find the problems and fanatically throw all (even the good stuff) out of the window!

I did not attack the person, but I questioned modern science and particularly statistics as such. But it is much easier to believe what you read than to think for yourself.

Hi, I must admit, that I am not totally up-to-date when it comes to C++, since I am not hopping on the newest standards as soon as they are there. And I am not actively programming in C++ currently.

But I don't think, that "auto" was specified to reduce typing. I see it more as a possibility to follow the "DRY" principle (don't repeat yourself).

There might be cases, where for example the return types of functions might change and you don't want to change every caller.

Templates are of course an other example, because the return types of templates oftentimes are depending of the input types. You of course can use those template declaration stuff, but it is very ugly and oftentimes clumsy.

I also found a nice example, where it really can help to make things more easy to read, here:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/252671/auto-c-c/12573433#...

I think, the real usages are rare, that is also the reason, it was specified rather late.

I never had a formal typing class and I guess I am still not that fast in typing, but with the years I learnt my keyboard (even in the US and the German variant) and for my opinion I am typing fast enough now, since I have to think sometimes between the strokes, still.

But when I look back at my career, I never had the feeling, to be to slow in typing even for Module II -- a language, that would never ever get the approval of the "C purists".

Doing refactoring, I use a simple trick myself -- I do much copy and paste ;) ... and delete (!) the copied stuff afterwards.

I think, as a programmer, it is a good property to be lazy -- but you should merely use it for code reuse instead for avoiding typing.

Oh, I forgot: I use vim, a typing avoidance editor. You can avoid lot of keystrokes or mouse moves with that editor. But not to avoid real content.

Then I would not call you "C purist". The "C purists" I knew, refused to much typing. It also was the reason they refused other languages for example such with "tiresome long" words like "begin" and "end".

I on my part (in spite using C myself) think that typing code is not that problem, but typing the right code. And -- at least when you are not alone programming -- every code line is read 10 or more times more often than it is written. So, to be clear and understandable is much more valuable to me, than come away with less strokes ...

To me it does not disclose that easily. The parallelism between "sizeof" and "elemsof" seems to me very constructed. "size" and "elements" are not similar words.

To be logical at all, the name should be "numelemsof" or "countelemsof" ... but I guess, those names are already to long for C purists ...

Yes, "elemsof" is not only another new name, but in my opinion, it is also a name that does not disclose itself easily.

Good naming in programming is an art.

I am not sure, if it is really worthwhile to produce a C equivalent language in the year 2013 for more productivity.

I think, that C has still some usages, but for bigger projects, it is IMHO not feasible to use C or an equivalent for the whole project.

Most usage I see in generated code or small code samples that have to run rather fast. My questions:

* for a faster C, is there really a new language needed? (can't we go with better compilers)

* C2 should provide better tooling, but at first it is a drawback, since old tools are not working or are limited. How does that fit together? Would it not better, to use just C for generated code (where the usability aspects are also neglect-able).

Of course, every programmer wants to create a new language, but most of them are not lasting long ... and C2 did not convince me from the front-page.

An app on my smartphone can be activated remotely without my noticing and record the sounds of the surroundings?

Sounds like a new attack vector for me (e.g. when somebody can manipulate the app or replace it by a fake version -- even "smart" apps can have errors) and even when it is not, the possible security win, it might bring, sounds rather small to me.

The main problem, I see, is that this "two factor" authentication gives a wrong feeling of security -- and the users might think, that a secure password is not so important --> think, the old 4digit PIN-code is "OK".

As an attacker, I would simply try a silent room and a time where most people are asleep. When somebody has forgotten to deactivate his phone, I got him.

In general, I distrust any security measure that relies on the possession of my phone. To bundle many security related things on one single thing, is a bad idea. Even with central keys of houses, there are so many problems, but what currently happens is, that the smartphone becomes the key to my home, my bank, my car ... (not kidding, a lock with smartphone access is already sold).

When I loose my phone, I am lost ...

There was a (rather old) film "Filofax" about somebody that found the filofax of another person an practically took over his live. Maybe it is time for a film called "smartphone". We are living in "smarter" times.

The name today is "cloud" ;)

Right. Investigations. But most of them are settled with a rather small fee for the corporations or with some small changes in the behavior (like the browser selection screen, that already was changed again in Windows 10, as much I heard).

That are the cosmetic changes I mentioned. I know nobody in the EU, that really wants to mess to much with the big corporations (I mean, the really big ones). And privacy concerns are mostly laughed at -- in Germany, the government itself even forces new privacy troubles without need on the people (like the "smart meter" or the "health card").

It would be nice, if it would be that easy.

See my answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10055866

Can you name examples, where big corporations got "Serious" penalties for privacy issues? I don't know any. I only know, that in Germany, we always say, how important the issue is, but at least under our current government, privacy issues and the officers are laughed at by the big politicians. They might say different, but that is the reality (in Germany, everything is double-correct, until you look under the carpet!).

The trouble is, besides the juristic impact here, when you go on this level, it gets political and many influential German politicians don't want to mess with the US and with big corporations (their motto: "Sozial ist, was Arbeit schafft!"), particularly in the current government! And don't think, that the EU is an independent entity -- the German government likes to make it look as such, but in reality, the EU does nothing, what the governments of the most influential countries do not want.

(I also don't think, that the current German government will change soon -- it is a mess!)

Could be, but also could not.

Microsoft once already was under EU investigation and the whole thing was settled with minimal efforts for Microsoft (the only thing I remember was, that they had to provide a browser selection screen).

When the OS sends encrypted data to their servers, who will prove, that their is an offense made? Even when the terms are troublesome in the EU, they will just make some cosmetic changes to the terms for Europe. There are other terms, that are not valid in the EU, but Microsoft did even not change them yet (as much I know), even when it gets problems to enforce them on the courts.

Privacy might be a issue in Europe, more than in the US, but don't forget: the privacy officers in Germany have nearly no power, and are laughed at or ignored by most politicians.

Microsoft has nearly nothing to fear, IMHO from the EU, so long the US jurisdiction is also holding its peace. In Germany/the EU, nobody has the guts to fence to hard against a large US corporation -- but that is my opinion.

It would be nice, when the EU would act on it, but I don't trust it!

You are right. But I have seen so many cases, where companies come away with it.

This is something, that definitively should be changed in our legal systems, but they are far from perfect, even when there are sometimes some honorable judges around (much to seldom in my country!).

Sure, you can try with any contract -- and go to trial.

But I have seen worse contracts and the companies are coming threw with it most of the time, but maybe in your country the juristic system is better and not the size of the company or the number of lawyers are important.

I for my side, would not bet on winning a trial against Microsoft in such a case.

That is the point. People are tricked into this and most of them did not read the terms or just ignored them.

But Microsoft is on the secure side, because you confirmed the terms -- and not many judges in the world will blame Microsoft in this situation, even when you argue, that you haven't read the terms. When you sign an other contract, you also can not argue, you haven't read the terms (even when they are in very small letters).

I did not say that, but I wanted to make clear, how people are tricked into this situation, where they can not trust even the OS.

With such an argumentation, you could just trash any terms. As long as they are not against any law, they are valid, as long as they do not contain something that is totally unexpected (for example that you must pay Microsoft additional fees above the normal price).

I also think, that Microsoft should be held accountable -- but it starts with those terms!

I think, many people just rushed into Windows 10, because it was free. But free, seldom means free in deed. A clever trick of Microsoft to trick people into this.

As long the privacy terms are not effectively changed and the OS stops to send coded data to servers, this OS can not be trusted.

You agreed to the privacy terms, so you are at the mercy of whatsoever Microsoft implemented. Windows 10 even could totally ignore your settings.

I say this, not because I think that this is OK, but to reflect, that even the change of the settings do not save you from the harm, that was done from the privacy terms!

Why downvoted? When you disagree, than give arguments, not gutless clicks!

For those, that do not yet know "Lesterland", should get to know it:

http://lesterland.lessig.org/ (there is a great video talk of Lessig on the page)

BTW: Lessig is great!

Another reason might be security: There are already attacks known, that are using the CPU cache and/or instruction pipeline to break the boundaries of virtualization. With today's virtualizable processors, it becomes more and more important, that the users can not access to much of the processors implementation details.

A parallel poster posted an official link from the British Government:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-supplying-dig...

There is clearly stated, that IP information is one of the proofs accepted for the country determination.

So, maybe next time, please first ask before judge.

You can not validate all payment methods by country (or do you want to limit the methods provided?). Also nobody hinders you from creating a bank account in a different EU country.

That "all" are doing it, does not guarantee, that one time a judge or tax controller will come and argue with you that you have no proofs at all. In this case, you are really bust, because the new law also says, that you are accountable for the tax to all the countries tax authorities. Much fun, when you get citations from different EU countries.

(Don't say it is not realistic: There are cases already public, where British shops got claims from remote EU countries, because of tax differences of <10 Euro).

And as long the EU does provide laws that are hard to implement in real life (only in the minds of the politicians they are simple) and nobody says how to implement them, it is better to collect all proof you can get.

In that case, the customer could cheat. I am not totally sure about the current discussion on that, but the problem is, that you definitively can not rely on the address given of the customer, because in this case the customer will always give a country with the lowest sales tax. Also you must provide proofs for the location. The IP address is IMHO (and not only my opinion) better and will be more likely be recognized as proof instead of relying solely on some customer input.

But, you (because you are so sure about the best method) by sure know, that the laws are explicitly for non-physical goods, where no delivery-address must be provided, right?

Here is a link, how one company is doing it (forget about government information, they seldom go so much in details!): https://rachelandrew.co.uk/archives/2014/12/08/consensus-and...

They use the IP address to validate the user given address and for later proof.

BTW: Downvoting all the time does not help the discussion. I try to discuss this topic seriously and I was bringing some very relevant topic here, and am constantly downvoted. (It is not my fault, that the EU came up with such laws, and provide no useful guide how to implement it!)

In the EU, the sales tax now (I think, since this year) must be paid to the country, the buyer comes from (before, the sellers country was decisive). Also the height of the tax depends on this. So, at least in Europe there are plenty of small companies that could need such a thing, at least as long they don't have a payment-provider that handles the sales-tax for them.

I myself, could also be interested, but I think, I will leave that to my payment-provider ... (ugly, EU!)

Edit: Ok, I should not, but why the downvote, please? When I wrote something wrong, than please explain!

I agree, that it is extremely useful, since before I knew Cython, I implemented some Python C extension modules by hand. That can become rather ugly and costs much sweat.

Today, I can use Cython. Or when I need even more speed, than I use Cython as wrapper-generator for a pure C module, that is still much, much easier to implement, as when I would have to do the wrapping work myself.

Cython is really enormous useful and precious to me!

Thank you for it!