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.