jpr

> Even if adobe was relying on bad behavior, it was glibc's bad behavior it was depending on.

Wasn't it implementation details it was relying on? Isn't NOT relying on implementation details pretty much the basis of good software engineering?

For what it's worth, I agree. Every time I hear about problems that arise from programming in C, with its undefined behaviour etc., I think to myself, there must be a better way to do it. But I don't know of any way that wouldn't involve scrapping 90%+ of software we use every day.

How hard can it be for Adobe to write standards conforming code?

The user doesn't care, but professional software developers, which I assumes Adobe's developers are, should make it a priority to follow the relevant standards.

Except that even the C++ hello world uses most features of the language:

* C-like functions (main)

* headers (iostream)

* namespaces (std)

* operator overloading (<<)

* object-orientation (cout is an instance of a class that is derived from ios and ios_base)

* templates (endl is a template function)

Casting malloc's return value in C is

a) not necessary

b) a bad idea, because if you forget to include stdlib.h the compiler won't warn you since it assumes that you know what you are doing when you cast an int (the default return type) to whatever pointer type it is.

From the comments:

> If you want an easy-to-use dynamic programming language, there are plenty better choices than Lisp

Huh, is there some new dynamic language that has completely slipped under my radar?

You have a strange definition of "friend".

> there is nothing sadder than someone who has lost their mobile phone and who finds they cannot even phone home or call their parents or partners because they cannot remember a single telephone number

Well, I guess if you don't know a single telephone number you can't do much. But if there is one phone number you should memorize (beyond 911 or equivalent), it is the phone number of the number service that will connect to you where ever you want.

I believe that we are largely beyond the age of recalling anything more than how to get to information we want quickly, and I like it.

Bash is probably the second worst thing unix has to offer, right after vi.

The command you demonstrated is only slightly faster than sorting the directory by type in a file explorer and selecting them with mouse and selecting delete from context menu, and much more dangerous, ie. when you mistype it as rm * .bak you just deleted everything in that folder permanently, whereas in a GUI you would've seen what you actually selected, and most likely only moved them to trash, not permanently deleted them right away.

Maybe it's different in the US, but as a Finn I don't think "end up drinking more" is good since people generally end up drinking quite enough without any financial help.

Finally something I can be hipster about.

You have the strangest definition of OO I've yet to come across.

If only someone told me what on earth they mean by OOP...

Depends on what you mean by OOP. But function pointers (mostly in structs) are one way to do it.

What is the great idea are you referring to?

(not trolling, I honestly don't know what it is that you mean)

That looks like an interesting paper. I'll save it so I can read it later.

Zuckerberg doesn't get context sensitivity.

Windows, which is by itself in the ~90% range, is not and has never been a closed ecosystem. You can easily install any piece of software you find anywhere. MS is even falling over themselves to give you free developer tools.

FWIW, as a EU citizen the things I've heard about traveling to/from/in US have mostly made me go wtf. Perhaps it's just because I spend too much time reading about TSA etc. on reddit, but maybe not.

I think this illustrates why FOSS hasn't taken, and probably won't take the "mainstream" by storm.

Users communicating directly with developers is a nice idea that sounds good at first, but unfortunately it can't really work when

a) there are many orders of magnitude more users than developers

b) users are not technologically advanced enough to provide the developers with useful (and preferably only useful) information about the bugs

This means that developers are effectively DoS:ed to death when trying to directly support a piece of software with lots of non-tech-geek users. What could solve the problem would be a group of people between developers and users which could translate normal language to and from tech-speak, and evaluate the importance of different bugs. I guess this can be automated to some extent with bug-tracking software, but I don't think it's enough when the software in question has lots and lots of users.

> this is the kind of crap that people read and use as yet-another-reason as to why they don't try to get fit.

I wonder if we read the same article?

I think he means more along the lines of "exhausted from exercise".

How did he make sure that the compiler wouldn't optimize them away?

> I know in design land this is an absolute no-no, but at the end of the day 1) it works 2) it's simple 3) it's x-browser 4) it's reliable.

The conclusion I would make from that data is that designers are... ahem... idiots (for not using a working, simple and reliable cross-browser solution)?

That sure sounds plausible, but is there any evidence that this was actually the case? I'm always looking for excuses to dress extravagantly and not shave.

Can't tell if trolling or not...

Is it just me or are 99% of tech "news" and "innovation" just reinvention of stuff already found in UNIX, Lisp etc. decades ago?

Or if we had a proper browser that still had that possibility... Oh wait, we do have those, but I don't if they are allowed on the iDevices.

It didn't.

Or perhaps it's people who mistake obfuscation for elegance and brevity.