minamea

What a fantastic catch. This is also one of Meyer's Effective C++ tips: always use const when applicable.

Heh, so out of the millions of policemen and militants in the world, that protect the billions out there, you found a handful that have gone bad. Sure, let's let anyone kill anyone then! Moral reasoning!

Heh, I'm < 25 yrs old and a coder at a top software company with a six figure salary. And I've only been coding for a couple of years. I give you advice, kid.

I'm not sure what these questions have to do with anything, but no, no, and no.

Again every point adds nothing to the debate:

Guns are tools for killing. I'm pretty afraid of that, and I think so are lots/the majority of other people, so that settles that.

Because there is the police and courts for trials. I don't want to be tried by some dude with shit judgement and there - my life is over.

You really are hopeless case. The whole world laughs at the stupidity of US gun control laws and it's just agonizing debating with someone on the other side. You know, the Boston bomber shouldn't have done that. He should've just assembled one of these and killed a couple hundred in the crowd, and you should be there.

The idea that someone can kill me because I got them angry is sillier. There are the police and courts and the like.

What, aside from the obvious reason? Someone in the military follows orders and serves the nation while someone with a gun will probably do whatever he/she feels with it and nothing actually useful. How is that?

Wow! Why have any protection against getting killed at all?! Let's just let everyone murder everyone else at will and then we'll try them afterwards! After all we can't stop them if we wanted to. Great logic!

I'd like to see your brave Kratos face with an AK-47 in your face.

Every point you make is wrong:

I'd have a decent chance of getting away from a car, I wouldn't from an AK-47. A car has other legitimate uses. Guns outside of the police and hunting, don't imo.

I wouldn't say being afraid of firearms counts me as having no spine and afraid of "anything". I just think you're kinda full of crap and would cry the most if you actually had a gun in your face.

I wouldn't say guns are just a means of force. A good punch, a knife is. A gun is just an automatic KO for me. So yes, I don't think the average person should be able to have a gun - something that serves no means other than give him the ability to kill people at will.

This is bullcrap. When someone has a rifle pointed at you, you don't care what the statistics are. You know your life is in danger and much, much more so than if someone had a knife or "blunt object". How is it supposed to make me feel safe that anyone can have a rifle? I'll just trust in their goodwill and hope they won't kill me with it if I piss them off?

What? How is this not a disgrace? This article means that practically anyone anywhere in the US can have an AK-47 with no licensing. How is that supposed to make me feel safe? What if I sneak into my GF's house and her dad tries me right then and there, and decides that the punishment for fucking his daughter is death. Oh, and what do you know? He has an AK-47 for it so all my hopes of running away are dashed. People shouldn't have the power to kill other people so easily - not unless they're the police or army.

What awful advice. I prefer someone to ask me "Can I help you?" If I need help I'll tell him, if I don't right now I'll tell him. Cornering me like that with a two choice question would just provoke me to rudely answering "I'll let you know when I need help".

Dear god don't compare the Xbox to Google TV. No. Google TV was shit slow at launch and that was enough to kill it, imo.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's true only if you use methods and not operators, because Go doesn't support operator overloading.

This is a bad attitude, imo. The Go standard library wouldn't be possible without generics [1]. It's just that the functionality exposed to the standard library isn't exposed otherwise.

If it's a feature needed for the standard library, then it's safe to say the devs will need it to. The devs aren't (shouldn't) be consistently writing programs that are more trivial than the standard library.

[1] http://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#append

Any plans to add templates/a form of generic programming? Does the community care about that? How have people been working around that?

And congrats!

EDIT: Yes I know what the faq says [1]. I was wondering if someone working on that can shed light on how the development of a satisfactory proposal has been going. Also, what's exactly wrong with template instantion like in C++ from the perspective of Go devs?

[1] http://golang.org/doc/faq#generics

I urge you to take this criticism more seriously. With your library a programmer is changing the semantics of class nesting in the language, all by pre-pending a very missable and ambiguous @case to the class. I'm no expert but I think this is pretty bad in any language, and especially one that says "explicit is better than implicit"

See I don't know about that. Maybe exceptions was one of the features that was good to be left out. I think maybe the comma ok idiom forces the programmer to more actively check for errors and recover from them, and there is no need to do things like RIIA. Maybe also the code is clearer to read, because you can see "if not ok then do_this()" and know that this is error checking/recovery code, instead of looking up the call stack to see where the exception that was thrown in one place is being handled.

Are garbage collection pauses really a concern? You're still running atop a multitasking operating system with all kinds of pauses.

That's exactly how I feel, I guess. D seems to have a lot more features (import, public import, and static import?) and I'm no expert but I feel some aren't all that necessary/add enough value. Go has fewer than C++, which I think is really good, except for some few ones that I wish were there. Only generic programming/templates off the top of my head actually.

I think that's true, but it's also sad. I've looked at D and it's criticism seems reasonable to me: it actually seems to have more features than C++.

I really hope Go catches on more and fixes some of the (imho) bad things about it (like lack of generic programming). And then C++ won't be the only option anymore.

Well I think there are if statements, loop conditions, and wildcard expansion that works in zsh but not in bash. So you could get used to something working in zsh, then you write an sh script with that thing, and then it doesn't work, and you have no idea why.

Example, I _think_ / (recursive globbing) works by default in zsh but not in bash. If you have / in a bash script without setting the right options then your script won't work and you will have no idea why until you've wasted a lot of time debugging.

After using zsh for a while I moved back to bash. The main reason is that I want to learn bash well, because I might be writing shell scripts in the future and I don't want to use zsh specific features in my scripts so I don't want to get used to them.

I'm trying to do windows development and I'm learning that if you don't try to force it into a unix-lixe env, it works fine.

I installed chocolatey [1] a package manager. With that I install python, git, and vim and I'm up and running. My vimrc and gitconfigs almost worked copied straight out of linux. I use cmd. My advice is not to use cygwin and the other stuff like it...

[1] http://chocolatey.org/

From reading How to Win Friends and Influence People, I think it boils down to self importance. We like to put others down because it makes us feel more important. If you recognize and let go of that desire as the book tells you to do, you can use the phenomenon to your advantage instead, and you learn that making others feel important makes you win them over.

I wonder if anyone can put a D lang web framework on there? Vibe.d seems to be the only viable one: http://vibed.org

Assuming the industry is 80% men and 20% women, and that the kind of genitalia you have doesn't affect your intelligence or proficiency in CS, and that the best, most proficient people should be speakers on panels... doesn't that mean that panels should be, on average, about 80% men and 20% women?

Anything more than that is over representation of women. This is just misandry I'm reading here.

My bad folks :)

Reference please? I think this is wrong.

Not being a picky prick this is a genuine question: What's the point of smart pointers? Seems to me that the #1 reason you would use a pointer is that you're allocating memory on the heap and you don't want the memory deallocated when the pointer goes out of scope.

Seems to me that the only difference between a smart pointer and declaring a variable is data on the heap vs data on the stack and there's not much difference there?

Sexism is wrong because this kind of discrimination is immoral. Women should be able to do whatever they want and are capable of doing for a career, not just what the men around them want them to do. This is a moral debate before it is a debate about maximizing performance. Sexism is as wrong as religious discrimination and racism (hence the analogy with slavery).

Suppose a case where a men-only field led to better performance, would you not think that it is morally correct to exclude women in this case? And that's besides the point: I don't think we should encourage women to go into CS because it makes CS better, I think we should encourage women to go into CS to let them know if that's what they want to do they can and they'll be welcome and they'll have a better life like that.

If I was a hiring manager I would want to have more women on my team, but I would not feel very good about myself turning down a man more qualified for a woman for no reason other than his gender. What if I'm Apple and I just destroyed this man's lifelong dream of working for Apple? Hiring should be based on merit, and nothing else. What's next? Hiring people from different religions because the team will benefit from the different viewpoints? So if you followed a religion you'd be more likely to get hired. I don't agree with that.

Men dominating the ranks of programmers, I believe, is due to women being less interested in programming. You could easily see this if you look at CS class. There is no discriminating employer there, and yet still the classes are men dominated. I believe in getting women interested in CS, not discriminating against men in hiring and access to learning resources.

As for whether it's the norm or not, here is the article that gave me that impression: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4730673