Just recently, I got this bit in an email from the Redmond Developer News ezine: TWO IF BY SEA In the course of just over a week starting on Jan. 30, a total of five undersea data cables linking Europe, Africa and the Middle East were damaged or disrupted. The first two cables to be lost link Europe with Egypt and terminate near the Port of Alexandria. http://reddevnews.com/columns/article.aspx?editorialsid=2502 Early speculation placed the blame on ship anchors that might have dragged across the sea floor during heavy weather.
Recently I've been looking more closely at the various (count them, four of them) proposals for adding new features into the Java language, the "BGGA", "FCM", "CICE" and "JCA" proposals. All of them are interesting and have their merits. A few other proposals for Java 7 have emerged as well, such as extension methods, enhancements to switch, the so-called "multi-catch" enhancement to exceptions, properties, better null support, and some syntax to support lists and maps natively.
Stu demonstrates one of the basic problems with an all-dynamic language: "I just spent an hour figuring out why some carefully-tested code went no-op after adding RSpec to a project." As much as I berate Stu at times (both in person and in blog), the fact is, I deeply respect and admire his programming skill, and if he can lose an hour to something that (I submit for your consideration) could have been caught by a static analysis tool fairly easily, then clearly that was a wasted hour of Stu's life.
During the Lang.NET Symposium, a couple of things "clicked" all simultaneously, giving me one of those "Oh, I get it now" moments that just doesn't want to leave you alone. During the Intentional Software presentation, as the demo wound onwards I (and the rest of the small group gathered there) found myself looking at the same source code, but presented in a variety of new ways, some of which appealed to me as the programmer, others of which appealed to the mathematicians in the room, others of which appealed to the non-programmers in the room.
Long-time readers of this blog know that as a general rule, I try not to include much in the way of personal stuff here; I try (sometimes with more success than others) to keep the subject material focused on the technology space: Java, .NET, Ruby, languages, XML services, and so on. This, however, is a deviation from that norm. A near and dear friend of mine has asked that I help spread the word about the disappearance of a family member (a cousin, in fact).
Wow. Giants 17, Patriots 14, when just about everybody had the Patriots by two touchdowns or so. Just goes to show, shouldn't count the little guy out 'til the fat lady sings and the cows come home. Also just goes to show, I shouldn't be blogging after an emotional heart-jerker like that one.
OK, after a week of getting the Internet equivalent of Bad Mojo being sent my way by every Perl developer on the planet, I have to admit something that may strike readers as inconsistent and incongruous. I want Parrot to work. I don't really care about Perl 6, per se. As I've said before, the language has a lot of linguistic inconsistencies and too many violations of the the Principle of Least Surprise to carry a lot of favor with me.
Normally, I like to stay out of these kinds of wars, but this post by Stu (whom I deeply respect and consider a friend, though he may not reciprocate by the time I'm done here) just really irked me somewhere sensitive. I'm not entirely sure why, but something about it just... rubbed me the wrong way, I guess is the best way to say it. Let's dissect, shall we? Stu begins with the following two candidates: 1.
... here. (Yes, it's an MSDN web page, but the article itself--as have all of its brethren in the series--is actually quite technology-neutral.) Enjoy and flame away....
ROFL! Update: Apparenty, this post (and two more referencing it) pushed me to #'s 1-4 on the "perl lover" Google list, out of 250,000. That is just so wrong, on so many levels.... :-)