erez

At first I thought it said "Overcooked no more" and assumed it was another article about another rocker swearing off the drugs, but no, it's another article about a woman who did something along with a dozen or more others but she should be pointed out because she's a woman. At least this is a real thing and not inventive. BTW, did you know the producer of the first Hip-Hop single was a woman? That should be more interesting than this.

I just love that not only they copyrighted it, they even give excuses for it. You can't copyright someone else's work, regardless of how long you took to reverse-engineer it from disassembled binaries. Obviously the "rights owners" are not going to take those two guys to court (pity though, that would've been hilarious), but since the only reason those two could license this is that this is a computer virus and no one will claim authority, their claims to ownership of the code have no merit. I would love it if someone would publish or use it and not give them credit or "violate" the terms of the license in some manner, as I'd love to see those two try to claim their case.

Someone decided to create a solution and then started looking for problems that will fit it. Finding none, they invented one.

That's some deep theosophical kung-fu you bring there, grasshopper. But seeing as the words of the Torah existed before the creation of the world, it might just be that you are correct.

I'm waiting for the sequel, Gutenberg used the same characters as in C, making him the first C programmer.

In many ways, the title is an example of a deeply flawed meta-analysis.

This is a weird one, but it seems the point isn't "Broken features aren't used" but rather "unused features don't get maintained and tend to break" and also the point of the article isn't broken features but "on whether to remove features, and which ones to remove"

I was more surprised by the title of the article than by the content of it. Looks like editors are writing "ready-to-reddit" headlines now.

I think the author, being a Java guy is using OO and Java as a reference point, not arguing that "this isn't applicable to non OO development". Basically he's saying that remembering the principles and practices is essential in every level of the development.

The rationale is, that once you have a programming language that is implemented in itself (usually that means that the compiler/interpreter is written in that language), then it means that your language has tackled and can deal with many issues that "system languages" deal with. Mainly dealing with the OS in a lower level, dealing with CPU/RAM, etc.

This is a large problem space that you can glean over by using C as a layer of interaction between your language and the underlying machine, but it makes your language a: not truly a "system language" and b: it also ties you to C philosophy, API/ABI, calling conventions and so on.

First thing I look for whenever I run across another "C competitor" is to look which language it is implemented in. Usually that's C, or C++, but this time, it does look like Crystal is implemented in Crystal, which is, to me, a very good indication that this is a "real" system language.

I believe Rust is also implemented in Rust and Go, after a few years of being implemented in C has now a compiler written in Go.

I think there's something in the LBW rules about intent, not to mention the whole concept of "where would've the ball gone has it not been etc. etc." I personally dislike the whole fixation over minutiae in Cricket today. The Laws should, I think, be updated for the new technology, for instance the front-foot no-ball which now is preposterous when they keep trying to see whether a millimetre of the foot crossed the line or not, or the run-out with whether the bat was firmly touching the ground on the other side of the crease or not. Those laws were fine when the umpiring wasn't technology assisted, but they are turning the whole game to a circus these days.

How does adding support for JSON types work with the Unix idea?

Actually I have. And that's a different issue, but also very annoying.

I'm not thinking style, or quality of music, but stardom. If this was the late 80's we'd use Madonna, or the mid-60's Beatles etc.

"A biography of a major cultural figure should not start by sounding like a performing arts undergraduate describing themself on Twitter."

That's the quote of the article for me. I think there is way too much emphasis on Liszt the performer and his earlier symphonic music than on his later work. At the latest stage of his life, he developed an almost post-modern attitude towards the piano, as a percussion instrument rather than a melodic one, and also began experimenting with atonal music. These are two of the most dominant aspects of early modern (i.e. 20th century) music, seen in Lizst work as early as 1885.

I don't get the 'yuck'. Everything else you wrote is more-or-less on the mark. He was a known celebrity. Although to a degree, we need to remember this isn't Beyonce appearing before stadiums of tens of thousands fans, but rather concert halls of about few hundreds at most. But in those days terms, it was mega stardom.

I've seen a few concerts with "fortepiano"s. They needed to be retuned during the performance and looked very diminutive and fragile compared to a modern piano.

I don't know who was the better pianist, but Liszt is definitely a better composer.

This has always been a pet-peeve of mine, watching sports replays. When re-run in slow motion, some tackles seem more aggressive, mostly because of the body motion of the "victim" being exaggerated, while others look benign. The commentators then make judgement calls on the validity of the umpire calls, which is made in real-time, based on their opinion that was formed using the slow-mo replay.

I use it, as a terminal editor, whenever I can. On my machines I use it instead of vi(m), and if I have control over a remote machine, there as well, I only use VI if a server doesn't have nano and I can't install it.

Technically email isn't federated. Like the web you have an email server that hosts an email address and all mail to and from go to it, and while you can IMAP to it through a client, and host a "mirror" of it, to send/recieve emails you still need to go through the single email server.

People don't want to use these services. People have to use them, as there is no other method. Had the web's been decentralized from the get-go, and someone would come with a centralized service, you'd find the goldenkeys of the world arguing "people want to use decentralized services".

This will not work. The whole "prototype" idea assumes once you grow out of the "prototype" phase you have the time, money, manpower, etc. to rewrite the whole thing based on solid, powerful technology and tools. That is, more of then than not, not the case.

The first problem is that every tool has demands, especially the limited ones, and you end up writing your application around those limits and demands, using platform-specific code that will have to be discarded and re-written come the migration.

The second problem is that these tools dictate design, and once you try migrating, you still have an application designed around the prototype tools, which make a lot of concessions and have design flaws because of that.

Finally, I've never understood the need for learning a specific tool, platform or language for "rapid prototyping". Use the tools you will use eventually, it's not that building something in, say, Java from scratch will take an order of magnitude more time and effort than building it on Node.js, despite all the hype, especially if you're a Java shop.

I think this is a recipe for disaster. First, there are basic things that you should do from the get-go, e.g. not using globals. Second, the problem with "eventually I'll do it right" is that by that time, your stuff is out in the open, used by clients and heavily depended upon, and you have no way of refactoring. A company that uses a bad piece of technology will suffer many years before they could replace it.

First, broaden the concept of "entirety of the segment". For most it's the immediate scope, or maybe the next level. I'm referring to understanding every element in there, where it comes from, and what it affects, even if you need to look in several other modules for that.

But, the idea is to try and understand why was the code written like that, what is the model the original programmer had in mind, and whether there could be more of the same errors in other places. It's the way you can see a db table and immediately know where will there be issues in the db design.

"The Yahoo way is, ‘We’ll throw 10 rocks against the wall, and maybe one of them will hit the bull’s-eye. But you need a sniper rifle in this business."

That's a load of crap. If anything, 'this business' showed us what you need to do is grow to a level where you can throw not 10, but 100 rocks against the wall, and once one of them hits, get another 4 dozens and hurl them at the same spot immediately.

Never could understand who doesn't put code examples on the main webpage of their language site. Especially seeing that their 'hello world' example is not really telling us anything.

It's like they are ashamed of the language they created and would rather hide it than display it.

I hate these kind of headlines. There's nothing inherently special in Virginia Woolf when it comes to programming, and her name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article but the headline, so why use her name? And when I start reading the article, realising this is "to be a better programmer, read novels etc." article, I have no desire to go on reading.

As such, I've been a proponent of reading code like text, instead of the usual maintenance method of locating the line with the bug, making the most minimal change and leaving everything else as-is. I believe the more I read the actual program, the better I can understand why was there a bug, get some insight into the original programmer's thinking, and maybe get some more idea on how to better fix the problem.

Is there any requirement that you can work on a "show HN" project for less than 24 hours? Were you prohibited from touching it afterwards? I don't understand this argument.

If you create something that is only working on Chrome, at least put "Google Chrome only" in the title, otherwise this is a broken application that you've just posted for the world to see.