I'm not even sure why we're discussing this when the post is mostly a strawman. There isn't any example given for "what makes it so goddamn hard to reason about SGML documents". If I understand the idea, he is suggesting that
<foo bar="zot">quux</foo>
is the same as
<foo bar="zot" text="quux"/>
or
<foo><bar>zot</bar>quux</foo>
The ambiguity is introduced when you suggest that meta-information and information are the same thing. Clearly, we wouldn't say that context is the same as experience or that memory is the same as reality.
Meta-information and information can be used in different ways to express or define the document which is why it would be better to understand the original complaint. The syntax exists because the distinction is useful for simple things like separating style from content (as others have mentioned). When there is ambiguity about the nature or value of the meta-information, it has nothing to do with the syntax. For example:
does a pretty poor job of conveying the information and the distinction between the element "complexes" and the attribute "type" is not readily understood. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater and suggest that the distinction is stupid when clearly the universe presented you with an absurdity.
I agree with everything up to "A way to monetize your services through varying account limits and priority lanes". This is completely accidental and I can only imagine someone on the finance team suggesting that the developers make it some kind of application lever.
I really like your frank style and, honestly, we need more of that in this field. However, let's focus on the science and leave the pricing models out. (at least until we no longer need these rants :D )
I totally agree if scalability also implies flexibility. I've seen too many cases where a developer will over-engineer something for flexibility when it is never, ever going to be necessary. For example, you will never, ever break a facade into a composite. I've seen a facade that is a wrapper for some external system engineered into a composite of Aggregators, Generators, Executors, etc. but the developer willfully ignored the fact that each of these pieces still have a dependency on the external systems/structures and are never likely to have separate implementations.
At the same time, I've seen OO used in the enterprise as a poor governance mechanism. For example, I've seen AAA unit test "frameworks" that included abstract methods solely to force developers to follow the pattern. But I just jumped right out of that shit by ignoring the instruction to "extend from AAAContextBase".
I agree: at best, this is data in search of a theory; at worst, it is just confirmation bias. However, I don't think the data is interesting as anything more than cocktail chatter. Is it interesting to find the average time of day for anything, e.g. meals, doctor appointments, movie times?
I totally agree with you that hiring is busted. I have done a lot of phone screens over the past few years and I make a point to ask only technical questions in order to weed out the the 56% of programming noobs who just want to make a million dollars and cash out.
However, I've noticed over this same time period that these screeners stumble into the office for a follow-up interview like giant toddlers: disheveled, incoherent, and totally self-involved. I wish this stereotype of the socially-awkward-yet-brilliant hacker would die in flames because it is not reality (or at best 2% of the community). Instead, this cultural delusion is convincing the socially awkward masses to seek out a job that is mostly about working closely with others, communicating constantly, and continuous compromise.
I have children in their 20's and I've seen how hard it can be to find your calling in life, but just because 99% of douche-bags earn a spot on reality tv that doesn't mean all stereotypes are true. Don't choose a job that you think fits your personality but that actually requires you to behave differently because you'll be miserable.
I up-voted your response; hopefully it helps. As you pointed out, I don't think the issue here is the relationship between college football and professional football although nearly every other response was about the game.
More importantly: why is this university distancing itself from a study by one of its professors and why is this professor getting death threats for doing her job.
I might be in the minority here, but these hackathons are a waste of time for exceptional talent; like asking a Heisman trophy winner to compete in Battle of the Network Stars.
These rising stars shouldn't be competing against each other to develop the best tool in the shortest amount of time. That ROI bullshit is at the heart of the problem.
If you want to challenge hackers, in the traditional sense, then continue to improve the security of your systems; they will still find ways to impress you.
If you want challenge hackers, in the more "dorm-room entrepreneurial" sense, then hire a bunch of them on 2-year contracts and let them do their own thing; they just might find a way to fill your pockets with cash.
Wait. Why did anyone continue reading that post after the thoroughly inaccurate description of Chris Cooper's character? The character is not homophobic: he is driven to murder by the shame and guilt of his repressed homosexuality. The character is acting in a manner that he believes to be more acceptable, either socially/collectively or personally, than embracing his own desires.
If you want an analogy, that is the analogy: it is more acceptable to focus on first-world problems in our culture than to focus on second-, or third-world problems. Repressing a desire to build things that enhance the lives of those who are less fortunate drives some people mad.
Please stop using square or sqrt or recur/iter as examples of functional programming. It's as bad as every "Hello World" println from new imperative languages that seem to pop up everyday.
And please stop suggesting that imperative programmers are unable or unwilling to fully grasp the functional mindset. It's really unnecessary. This is akin to every claim that new technology is "scary". Disruption is not frightening, it's just unwelcome.
Give the imperative programmers a little slack; they're trying to solve problems just like everyone else. It's not their fault you don't enjoy reading epic poems written in iambic pentameter.
Which one are you? The problem with the magical numbers and hand waving is that there is a 80% chance that the author is one of the mediocre. Would you take this advice from someone who is mediocre?
I think we're all missing the point; namely, the assumption of Mr. Friedman’s rank. Suppose that Mr. Friedman is above average, then the suggestions in this opinion piece are plausible and should demand our sincere consideration. Now suppose that Mr. Friedman is below average. In this case, his suggestions are most certainly suspect and quite possibly invaluable; you should disregard everything that has been mentioned here today.
But all of that is irrelevant, because the truly significant aspect of human ranking is that someone outside the system must perform this activity. The only viable assessment of a human’s averageness must come from an unbiased source whose own averageness can never be in question. This outside, unbiased source must first assess Mr. Friedman’s averageness before any intelligent discussion can commence.
FTW. At least we know who in this thread is the sectarian. Only an idiot would draw an analogy between their private personification of evil and an entire group of people. A rose by any other name is a damn racist.
is the same as
or
The ambiguity is introduced when you suggest that meta-information and information are the same thing. Clearly, we wouldn't say that context is the same as experience or that memory is the same as reality.
Meta-information and information can be used in different ways to express or define the document which is why it would be better to understand the original complaint. The syntax exists because the distinction is useful for simple things like separating style from content (as others have mentioned). When there is ambiguity about the nature or value of the meta-information, it has nothing to do with the syntax. For example:
does a pretty poor job of conveying the information and the distinction between the element "complexes" and the attribute "type" is not readily understood. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater and suggest that the distinction is stupid when clearly the universe presented you with an absurdity.