cechner

anyone in Tokyo interested in this should check out the Lexaloffle HQ in Kichijoji - http://picopicocafe.com

They have a very developer friendly environment (I spent many days programming there, they often hold Ludum Dare marathons) and Joseph is a first class indy developer.

This was my thoughts on the matter: http://seshbot.com/blog/2014/01/24/the-best-way-for-programm...

summary: ask the open ended question ‘what was the most recent interesting project in which you were heavily involved?’ and then focus most of your technical questions on the system the then describe. If a programmer can’t talk throughly about a topic which they chose themselves and are purportedly very interested, they probably aren’t right for the job (at whatever company I’m working for anyway!)

The benefits are that you wont be randomly hitting a gap in their knowledge, you get a better idea of what they feel are their greatest strengths, and because you can raise your expectations about the quality of their answer you can probe very deeply and find out how good they are at communicating, and whether they are actually blagging.

The problems you can encounter are: they might end up running the interview if you aren't careful; you must be very engaged and perhaps talk about things you aren't that knowledgable yourself, and it is harder to compare one candidate with another (which is VERY important at large companies where you must justify your decisions to HR)

I spent the last few months struggling with modern OpenGL myself - using GL ES2 which doesnt even provide access to the deprecated OpenGL 1 stuff. I wrote about it here to help others trying to pick it up from scratch: http://seshbot.com/blog/2015/05/05/an-introduction-to-opengl...

interesting! I had not really given much thought on how distributed computing or enterprise architectures would fit in a modern curriculum...

I don't think that math should be considered filler though - it was very fundamental to my degree! In fact the first year of my comp. sci. degree was /exactly/ the same as the first year engineering curriculum. It was almost entirely math, with basic programming (just pascal) which the engineers also needed for their degree.

As such I'd say that math is still very prominent in most comp sci degrees

edit: in fact as chance has it I was just today going over some old lecture notes from my 3rd degree year, and even the programming courses were extremely heavy in inductive reasoning to demonstrate how, for example, Big(O) notation worked with different algorithms (i.e., actual formal proofs)

This is algorithms, which while useful is not even the majority part of a computer science education, as I understand it.

My CS degree involved image processing, graphics, operating systems, systems programming (low level programming), programming language theory, discrete math, linear algebra and statistics, just off the top of my head.

Interestingly programming is actually not a big part of a degree (again, as I understand it.) It takes many years to become a good programmer, and it would be a waste to dedicate an entire 4 year degree to just that.

but the same wouldnt be acceptable in other lines of work right? Try a civil engineer or surgeon... what would you expect someone to do in similar situations? Probably escalate the issue and perhaps delay the release.

Pushing in shitty broken means you're not doing your job. If your company forces you to do this then they are not doing their job.

Actually the up side to value semantics is that it can take full advantage of move operations, so that if operating on an l-value your code only need copy the data the first time, then move kicks in for the rest of the chain... (i.e., mydata | filter(f) | reverse() | take(10) - only the filter() call will create the copy). And if you are operating on an rvalue no copies will be made at all.

Have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJIaGRDIyEE

Eric Neibler's approach (which I am really looking forward to!) is to state that range operations should never take ownership of the original data and therefore operations should be performed lazily. This prevents the rvalue optimisation, but enables lazy evaluation.

Its just a trade-off, but the value semantics approach isnt as bad as you might think...

edit: on further inspection the last paragraph of the article mentions this but doesnt go into detail.

> stage1 and stage2 are awful function names in this context

Clearly that was an example created to demonstrate the lambda idiom, it wasnt real code

hey, I updated the post (though I didn't lower the polemic attitude!)

I just added links to several of Herb Sutters articles (e.g., http://herbsutter.com/2013/08/12/gotw-94-solution-aaa-style-... ) and Scott Meyers talk (http://vimeo.com/channels/ndc2014/97318797 )

They say it better than I really could, and they say it very emphatically. I think the general consensus amongst the C++ leadership is to use auto when possible, for more reasons than I had considered.

edit: I notice you also object to 'appeals to authority'. In this case I am not saying do it because all of the known C++ authority tell you to do it, but indicating that they /also/ recommend it, hopefully adding more weight to the argument

Also, what's wrong with appealing to authority on difficult subject matter? Whats the point of attending Scott Meyers' lectures at all if you aren't going to heed his advice???

> If your shit gets leaked out there onto the internet, major labels will lose interest in you

I really don't think that becoming popular on the Internet would make you less appealing to a label. (I hope I'm not mangling your intended meaning too much.)

> Every small-time musician I've talked to has expressed favor for stronger copyright controls

I know many 'small time musicians' and not one of them is in favour of stronger copyright controls. In fact they spend a lot of their time trying to get their names out by any means possible. This is one of the main things MySpace is still used for, I believe - the free distribution of indy music.

Music LABELS on the other hand, love controlling distribution because that's pretty much the main thing they do. They also love to make people think that the musicians beholden to them think this way as well.

edit to add disclaimer: I don't know anyone who is signed to a label.

This so succinctly describes the problem that I created an account just to upvote you.

These laws are essentially fabricating scarcity - the medium has /solved/ the distribution problem, so of course anyone with an interest in monopolising distribution would try to stymie it.

This reminds me tangentially of software developers - especially iOS devs (of which I am one) - who get upset when their apps are cloned. It only seems unfair to those devs because they refuse to evolve with the available technology. You just don't make profits in the same way anymore. You want to take advantage of simple free distribution, but of course you don't want it to be TOO free!

I will now go out and buy that book...