aplusbi

JavaScript isn't really important for non-web development. I used to program video games for hand held consoles and JavaScript was the last thing on my mind.

Okay, maybe I was working for the unmentioned 1% (and for what it's worth, the company I currently work for uses JavaScript). And really, it's not a bad idea to learn JavaScript - it's pretty ubiquitous and chances are you will work for a company that uses it at some point in your career. But honestly, I'm getting a little sick of all these articles that seem to forget that there is more to programming than web apps.

Edited to remove snarkiness.

I don't know about this challenge, but during the Tron AI challenge, execution speed was very important. There was a time limit for how long your AI could take to make a move so the faster your execution the deeper your min-max tree.

Part of the article's popularity probably has to do with the popularity of Steve Yegge.

Haskell is listed under Steve's "Favorite Languages", along with OCaml, Clojure, Common Lisp ans Scheme.

I don't think Steve is trying to make fun of Haskell so much as the idea of Haskell.

That depends on your definition of "satisfactory" - F# uses strong type inference on literals and there is no ambiguity. Of course this means that distinguishing between types requires metadata, for example 42uy is an unsigned byte, 42L is an int64, 42I is a bigint and 42N is a BigRational. I think this is satisfactory, although you might disagree.

Tomatoes ARE vegetables. They are also fruits. The noun "vegetable" doesn't have a strict definition and tomatoes fall into that classification.

Botanically speaking they are berries.

>If you are drinking something that did not come from this plant (chamomile, mint, tulsi, rooibos, etc) it is not tea).

I hear this every once in awhile and at best it's pedantic and at worst it's just wrong. What do you call chamomile tea? An infusion? Even if it is technically wrong everybody calls infusions "tea" and I think it's safe to argue that the word has evolved beyond the original meaning.

That sounds terrible. If I saw something like that, I'd probably do the problem, then look up more information on it. I'd probably start with wikipedia but move onto google (well, ddg these days) if I didn't find anything.

The sort of policy that does not allow one to do basic research is pretty anti-academic if you ask me.

The problem is that some grocery stores (or products, it could be either) use different quantities. For example, one product might be price per quart and another is price per gallon. I've even seen volume and weight being used for similar products.

I think hackers are attracted to outdoorsy sports, and non-team sports. Plus there is a lot of climbing gear to geek out about.

A fair point. I think it's safe to say that's not the case - they really think it's just water, but let's just say they do treat them as bomb ingredients. Even though binary explosives are inert when separate that still doesn't mean you can just throw them away.

Exactly - if they don't really think they are explosives, then why are they confiscating them in the first place? Either dispose of them properly or just let people on the plane with bottled water.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "overqualified". I'm a computer programmer, and let's say I lost my job and started looking for a job in construction. I've never worked in construction before and while I'm not out-of-shape I'm not exactly ready for heavy-lifting.

So am I overqualified or underqualified? Or both?

OpenTable is 24/7 and from the customer's perspective, instantaneous. A phone-based backend would not be able to compete.

I decided to download the new F# release on Linux. It comes with a script to install it on mono, but the DLL needs to be resigned with a key that has to be downloaded from github. So I care. But of course, my situation is the exception, not the rule.

I can probably find it elsewhere, but it's still annoying.

I think it would be similar to the phenomenon of Chinese people forgetting how to write characters that they can read and type. Perhaps not disgusting, but something is lost in the process.

The biggest issue is probably just trying to find a return fair. Late at night most people are going from Manhattan to one of the outer boroughs - not the other way around. The usually end up driving an empty cab back to Manhattan, so they are effectively getting a half-fare.

Atlassian isn't hiring people solely on the strength of their screener. They just want to be able to more objectively screen out people who have no business applying. Most companies do this by reviewing resumes and getting rid of everyone who, say, doesn't have X years experience with Y language, or didn't have Z GPA in college.

I think we'll see greater use of type-inference in statically typed languages. I hope that we get rid of the "kinda strong" type systems (like C++). While I appreciate the convenience of such type systems, I think greater type safety is a worth the trade-off.

Alright, I know you said you are not responding further, but you are misinterpreting what I am saying. At no point have I been unwilling to acknowledge that Martin committed an intentional act that was wrong. I am not saying that Zed is at least as wrong, not even close. The most wrong person in the entire exchange is Martin. I've clearly failed to communicate this to you and I apologize.

I'm just trying to say that when people make mistakes they should be corrected, but correcting them politely is more effective. I think this is especially true when the person who made the mistake looks up to you.

You are free to disagree with that, but please stop putting words in my mouth.

Edit: If I'm not mistaken, you have just said that Zed's response was "mildly harsh". It looks like we agree with each other. I think Martin committed copyright infringement and that Zed's response was mildly harsh (I think I initially used the word "rude").

I think the problem is that we are arguing two different things here. You are arguing that Martin committed a crime and acted like a douchebag. I agree 100% with this. I am in no way trying to defend Martin's copyright infringement. What Martin did was wrong and Zed had every right to ask him to take down the book.

What I am trying to argue is that Martin wasn't being malicious, he made an honest (albeit stupid) mistake. It sounds like he believed that Zed would be thrilled that someone was extending LPTHW to Ruby and didn't realize he was committing copyright infringement in the process. To be clear this in no way excuses him from the consequences.

I am drawing this conclusion from the following: Martin acknowledged Zed's authorship and that Martin contacted Zed to let him know about the project. I am also speculating that Martin was ignorant of the licensing and assumed a permissive license. LPTHW is distributed for free (as in beer) and Zed has released a lot of other things for free (as in freedom). It's not that much of a stretch to see how someone could assuming that this "free" book was open.

Zed had every right to ask Martin to stop writing the book. I don't feel that calling Martin "classless" was called for however, given that Martin seems to be a Zed fanboy of sorts.

For some reason you seem to think that I am arguing that Zed is 100% in the wrong. I am not. I'm just saying that both acted in a manner that is unbecoming of civilized people.

As an analogy, let's say I wrote some fan-fiction based on a story I really like. In the process I copied too much of the original source. I publish it on my blog and e-mail the author of the story a link to it, thinking that the author will excited to know that she inspired me to write and will maybe enjoy seeing a different take on her work.

Instead calls me classless for not writing my own original story and tells me to remove it from my blog.

While she has every right to ask me to remove it considered I'd copied too much of the original work, I wasn't trying to offend her - just the opposite in fact!

Was I wrong? Yes, of course. I posted her copyrighted story on my blog. Was I classless? I would argue no - my intent wasn't to write an original story, but to extend a story that I loved.

At this point, I might be tempted to call her out for calling me classless (which I really shouldn't do, and Martin did), but it's easy to see how I could feel that way. A simple "please remove this" would have been sufficient, I would have realized my error and I wouldn't feel bitter about the exchange.

TL;DR - There is a difference between being ethically wrong and legally wrong and two wrongs don't make a right.

No, but the "Hey I write stuff using your software, I never meant to mistreat you." is.

No, he bumped into Shaw. Nothing points towards malice at all. In most parts of modern society, the honest response would be along the lines of, "Dude, what were you thinking?"

Absorb this fact - at no point have I suggested that martin was right. The ONLY thing I am trying to assert is that Martin copied the book out of ignorance not malice and that Zed could (and in my opinion should) have been more polite.

Martin's actions after Zed's response are inexcusable. But that doesn't mean Zed wasn't being rude.

I subscribe to the "Don't be a douchebag" philosophy, and I think both Martin and Zed were being douchebags. BUT Martin wasn't being a douchebag when he copied the book, he was just being ignorant (and breaking the law).

Yes, he committed copyright infringement - I'm not going to argue that. I'm talking about intent - did Martin have malicious intent? I don't think so. I don't think he ignored the license - I think he assumed it was under a permissive license - a silly mistake, but since the book is "free" it's not hard to see how someone could make that mistake.

This wasn't plagiarism. At no point did Martin attempt to pass this off as his own work. This was an homage, very much in the spirit of open source - the only problem was that the book is not open source.

I don't think Martin was trying to ask for permission. It seems to me that he assumed it would be okay to do this, and wanted to let Zed know that his work was appreciated.

The Engine Yard comment was meant to be taken as "I use your stuff (mongrel) and respect you. I had no intention of wronging you."

As for "being caught red-handed" it's a matter of intent. Martin didn't mean to wrong Zed, he was inspired by Zed but ultimately messed up (by assuming it was okay to modify the text).

I'm pretty sure Martin meant that respects and appreciates Zed's work as he uses mongrel, and that he was not in any way trying to be disrespectful to Zed in copying the book.

And he could have politely asked Martin to take it down. Zed was being "not nice" no matter how you look at it. He could have been worse, but that's like saying you shouldn't be mad because I punched you in the stomach instead of the face.

Edit: okay, the analogy is a strawman but seriously, just because someone could have been worse doesn't excuse their behavior. Telling someone they have no class is rude, especially when it's pretty clear that Martin wasn't trying to plagiarize Zed's book - he was just confused about its licensing.