willurd

I've got varying degrees of experience (some professional, some not) with C++, C, Objective-C, Java, ActionScript 3.

EDIT: Also C# (so many languages, I can't even remember which ones I've used sometimes). I'm also not including TypeScript or Dart (optional static typing), which I've technically "tried", but don't know much about.

Agreed, maybe that's why fewer tools (if any) exist to do things like programmatic refactoring in JavaScript (does WebStorm do that at all?)

That being said, I've found the language a pleasure to work with (aside from browser incompatibility issues) and with the proper application of design principles such as modularity (check out require.js and the r.js optimizer) and, yes, DRY, I can be just as productive, if not more so, in JavaScript as I am in any statically-typed language.

I don't necessarily disagree with the article, but maybe the solution is a new kind of search. One which understands languages, statically analyzes a source tree, and searches the ASTs for the tokens you're interested in.

This would also have the side benefit of being able to produce better designed search results.

EDIT: I suppose searching the AST wouldn't be enough, you would have to evaluate the code to some extent to be able to search these properties.

> No, screw you.

This is how I feel every time I hear someone make excuses for things like this. It's less "screw you, I hate you" and more "screw you, wake the hell up".

> Presuming for a moment that all the information collected by NSA is, in fact, public information

You mean like our phone calls, text messages, emails, and encrypted communications? Yeah, I'm sure we all intended for those to be "public information".

> If the general public should be tracked to such precision

No concessions will be made. This is so unconstitutional (and just plain wrong) it's sickening.

I'm sure you're a smart/nice/well-meaning person, but I'm sick of people sticking up for the government. All it takes is a little bit of research and thinking about what's going on objectively to see that those running the government do not have our best interest at heart.

I read this like spoken word poetry. It was quite amusing.

Oh gods of HN, grant me thine Downvote Dagger that I may smite this post.

Maybe that's the reason you guys and gals are still pretty true to the 2nd amendment, at least relatively.

I don't know what I find more disturbing: the complete and utter disregard for the rule of law by our elected and appointed officials, or the fact that some people find no fault with that.

I was wondering if anyone else noticed the chairwoman's grin when General Alexander talked about operating lawfully. Made me sick. The whole charade made me sick...

It wasn't just him, it was everyone, the senators included.

A notable quote from our public servants:

"The executive order, as you know, is this administration's effort after an attempt to get legislation last year."

Let that soak in for a bit.

I had a little trouble parsing your first paragraph. But vote third party? Now you're speaking my language :)

Yeah. They are all reading from scripts. "This is something that we take looks down at script very seriously." Also, it appears that they were all privy to what each other was going to say before the hearing. "looks down at script As you said ..." Does that disturb anyone else?

That was over 200 years ago. I am talking about people today. cf. point 7.

Pipe bombs and molotov cocktails are "arms" (just ask the government). Don't confuse "should you" with "do you have the right". Should you have pipe bombs and molotov cocktails? Probably not, as I'm sure they are illegal. And even if they weren't, you might decide it's not a good idea for you. But do you have that right? I think our founding fathers intended for us to be as well, or even more well armed than our government.

But again, there's a double standard going on here. Our government, even our local police forces, have these capabilities. They have the modern day and sophisticated equivalents of pipe bombs and molotov cocktails (grenades, flash bangs, drones, actual assault rifles, etc). Why are we trusting these people with these kinds of munitions? Anybody who has been paying any attention in the last 50 years has seen the gross abuses of power perpetrated by our police and government. So I ask again, why are we allowing them to have this kind of fire power? Or, do they just take it without our consent? If so, why do we need their consent to arm ourselves? Aren't we the boss? Don't they work for us? Aren't they public servants?

I hear this one a lot. "The military is so big, they have missiles, drones, etc etc etc, you could never defeat them in battle." This argument has several flaws:

1. This is just more proof that we (the people) need to hold on to whatever arms we can get. We've mistakenly let our military accrue a cache and kind of weaponry that we have not allowed even ourselves to possess. If the powder keg does explode, less arms is not better than more.

2. Many service men and women take their pledge to uphold the constitution very seriously, and would not take up arms against the American people (and most likely would take up arms against a tyrannical government, should it come to that). This is why many veterans are proclaimed mentally incompetent and disarmed (http://www.benefits.va.gov/pensionandfiduciary/fiduciary/ben..., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NlBgtIeU1s).

3. There are 1.5 million active military personnel and 850 thousand reserves (Wikipedia). There 311 million Americans, not including the roughly 3 million that are active or reserve military personnel. We are a bigger force by far.

4. "You're going to die if you fight." Appeal to emotion.

5. "How can you even say that with a straight face." Appeal to ridicule.

6. There are many reasons to "want a gun" beyond protecting yourself from tyranny, including self defense from criminals, sport, hunting and recreation. But "wanting" has nothing to do with it. You don't need to explain why you want a gun and you don't have to show a "need" for it. It is your inalienable (seriously, look this word up, ponder its meaning) right. It cannot be taken from you (though you can give it up willingly, I suppose).

EDIT:

7. In 2011, Ron Paul received 6 times (http://ronpaulronpaul.com/) more in contributions from active military personnel than all of the other republican candidates combined. For those that don't know, Ron Paul ran on a campaign of small government, less war, etc. That should tell you where our military stands on this matter.

Glad somebody picked up on it :)

Most people? Or are you projecting. I would like a citation on this.

Wow, direct assignment is an order of magnitude faster than push (in my test, chrome 27 on windows 7). Can anyone explain why?

I get where you're coming from. And I get the logic of your argument. But history has also shown us, time and again, that when you give one or more people power they will abuse it, even if intentions were originally good (you need only to look at your nearest government to find abuse of power). Also one person's definition of negative is often not the same as another's (and when you have 350 million people with different opinions, you are certain to have disagreement). The big question is, who gets to make the decision about who's definition of "bad" is right? Who has the authority to tell me I can't have salt, or drink more than 16oz of soda, or own pistol magazines with a capacity of more than 7 rounds with which to defend my life, or profit from property I own? When I have committed no crime, who has the right to compel me to do these things? In my opinion, it's a massive overreach, plain and simple.

Another question you should be asking yourself is: who stands to profit financially from this decision? That will almost invariably lead you to the reason why the decision was made.

You could, but then you would be limiting personal freedoms for those that aren't part of the problem. In my opinion that flies in the face of everything this country and its constitution stand for. One of these days it will be your favorite thing (large sodas, salt, what's next, NYC?) that is outlawed because someone else might be causing a problem with it.

That's why we have courts. You take a problem to court when it becomes a problem. You don't punish an entire city for something some people might or even will do.

I know haha. Give me a computer language and I'm good, but those pesky human languages... Who knows, maybe the problem is all in my head. Anyway, thanks so much for the info!

Thanks! I'm generally reserved until I get to know people as well. It's been my experience that most americans really don't fall into that loud/obnoxious/rude/belligerent stereotype that seems to be making the rounds (maybe not this generation's teenagers, though...).

Really, the thing that scares me the most about moving somewhere like sweden is learning the langage ;) I don't really have a gift for (human) languages, and swedish seems pretty tough already.

Let's be honest with ourselves. There are plenty of Democratic politicians who, also, have never produced anything and are paid by the state.

I wish I was surprised. Frankly, I've come to expect that type of reaction to anything that challenges the establishment.

I've seen this in the US, too. It's on the labels, typically listed in price per ounce/fluid ounce for smaller items. Maybe it's a local law (Los Angeles) because it's that way at every super market I go to.

> Lobbying isn't really a thing here, and is actually considered to be corruption.

As an american, I would agree wholeheartedly that lobbying is most definitely corruption.

> Whenever that sort of thing happens (which is pretty rare), the press is having a field day.

Oh how I wish the US news would report something like this. Just once. But our media is in the government's pocket. Or, rather, big business' pocket, and the government in theirs. I guess that means I'm wearing a "tin-foil hat". Although I can't see it. Must be one of those government sponsored, brain-altering, invisible tin-foil hats. Bastards!

EDIT: Also, I've seriously considered moving to Sweden or one of the other Nordic (as we call them; don't know if it's the same over there) countries. Are Swedish people generally welcoming to newcomers or not? (And, yes, I know I'm generalizing; sorry.)

Can we please stop using "tea-party" as a derogatory term? Not only is it needlessly offensive (and I'm not even a member of the tea-party), it doesn't even make sense. Since when did "strict adherence to the United States Constitution" and "reducing U.S. government spending and taxes" (see Wikipedia) mean "retarded" (as in, "full retard", as in where you got the "full XYZ" template)?