331 karma · joined February 16, 2015
Not in this case. Java failed because it sucked from a technical point of view. It traded better 'OO purity' in exchange for worse security, portability and performance.
The end result is that users got something that was slower and buggier for no gain.
Well, the managers are the dudes who are getting paid for being responsible. The 'peons' are correct.
Double-plus goodthink, comrade!
No such thing. A "reusable" rocket means you waste capacity carrying fuel for the return trip, and so raise the costs.
It's not like you can refuel the rocket once you get where you're going.
This is the reason why nobody uses "reusable" rockets today, not tech. (The tech was available back in the '60s.)
a) Price dumping and giving out a free OS to Chinese OEM's.
b) Making a "luxury" product to differentiate against Chinese OEM's.
Neither of these two paths was open to Blackberry. Sorry.
They're not. People vastly more experienced and more intelligent than you came up with them. Learn why they exist before dismissing them.
You won't get anywhere trying to replace C with a "let's go shopping instead" mentality.
No they are not. C++ has spent decades building "a better C/C++". Any language that ignores those lessons and takes the stance of "learning C++ is too hard, let's go shopping" is doomed to fail.
No. Next question.
No, it is not.
> proper package manager, modules
That's an OS usability issue, not a language problem. Personally, Nix solved this for me.
> type constraints
C++ has type constraints, and ones that actually work. I suspect what you call 'type constraints' is something that can't exist if you understand the difference between 'run-time' and 'compile-time'.
> sane lookup rules for function calls
A very minor issue. If you don't like function overloads, then don't use them.
> thread safety, a proper monastic future type
Please no. The kind of 'thread safety' you want destroys the benefit of using threads in the first place. C++ threading is perfect as it is.
> Also most people won’t see C++ 17 or 14 for another decade.
Frankly, I don't care about these twisted people stuck in enterprise hell.
And you never should. That indeed is horrible design.
What you do need is a separation between 'exceptions that cause hard failure' v.s. 'exceptions that can lead to soft restarts'.
You can easily separate them using common sense just looking at where your interface is located.
What is this, the Guild of Legacy Crap Archeology?
That's because you're inexperienced.
> All possible behaviors should be treated on equal footing, using the control structures of your language.
That's impossible if you're dealing with a system composed of multiple interacting abstraction layers.
An error inside a function precondition is not the same as an error crashing a thread of execution, which in turn is not the same as an error in logical consistency communicating between different services.
The "equal footing" you're talking about can only exist if you're dealing with very simple and linear programs.
Yes, there's can be benefit to starting from scratch with a different language w.r.t. training new teams with good habits and skills from the start.
But going into Rust just because it's fashionable at the moment is a recipe for pain several years down the line.
If you want a working pain-free solution learn C++17 instead.
It's not, it's just phonetic transcription of modern urban English with some SMS-style typing errors thrown in.
Really disappointed with the crappy low-effort linguistics in that book.
- Always yours, Microsoft.
Is there something to revive?
Of course you can. Works perfectly well for rape and murder, for example. (As well as for traffic violations, for that matter.)
Well then, stop complaining. People shovel shit all day for a fraction of that money.
Are people really dumb enough to fall for this trick over and over again?
(Don't answer, that was a rhetorical question.)
It's not a mystery, people. Only a conspiracy.
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of email servers are corporate servers, not in FANG datacenters.
"High salary" means "above market rate salary", i.e., you're the one who offers more than everyone else.
Yes, it does definitely create loyalty, to pretend otherwise is stupid. There are some things people won't do for money, but it's an awfully small list.