the interesting and the sad

[Frits van Bommel]

Daniel Keep wrote:
> kris wrote:
>> you decide which is which:
>>
>> http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds10-4/firstlang.html
[snip]
> 
> * reads acm one *
> 
> Ok, I know COBOL was verbose... but that's ridiculous.

Yeah, that's pretty bad. Is none of that optional?

 > Also, am I the
> only one annoyed that every time I read a topical article like this on
> the web, no one bothers to mention *when* it was written?  I mean, how
> the heck are you supposed to know if it's still relevant or not?

At the bottom it says "Copyright 2004"...

> Since it doesn't mention D (or far worse: Python), I'm going to assume
> it was written some time in the late Cretaceous period. :)

Yeah, the only (procedural) scripting language mentioned seems to be 
qbasic. (I'm not sure how the functional languages and Prolog should be 
classified) No mention at all of any more recent mainstream scripting 
languages is a bit weird.
No mention of D is too bad, but I have no idea in what state D was in 
2004. I wasn't around for v0.77-v0.110.

> Other than that, an interesting read.  Thankfully D seems to fill most
> of the requirements he mentions.

Yes it does.

> P.S. Yes, I spent 5 minutes writing this so that the right side of all
> the paragraphs would line up nicely. :)

Bored?


 >> 
http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2007/03/17/jack-thompson-responds-to-the-take-two-lawsuit

What we have here is a lawyer who responds to being sued by quoting 
scripture instead of legal texts <rolls eyes>...
The fact that the lawsuit that has him arguing religion is about /video 
games/ just makes it even sadder.
Even if I'd never heard of him before, that'd be enough reason for me to 
never consider hiring him.