I spent a lot of time trying to track down bug in a system once (in php) that was caused by this. I don't remember the exact problem but basically it did something like "if(x == 5)" which is true for both 5 and "5" - but later in the code it was important that the value was actually 5 and not "5".
But I think the main thing is that for people beginning programming it's better to have less flexibility. In most production system it might not matter that 5=="5" but it's important for beginners to understand how different types work. And it helps give a better insight into how if statements, and boolean logic in general, work.
I agree - in fact the problem was solved by removing some unnecessary type-checking code.
The point I was trying to make is that it's easier to learn the basics of types and logic in a strict system. Implicit type conversion and polymorphism can easily result in misunderstandings when you've just started learning to program.
Again. These are classes for _beginners_. I'm not suggesting that you should never learn these things. They should also learn functional programming, estimating how algorithms perform, concurrent programming, binary trees, and a few hundred other things.
But Programming is not something you master overnight.
You need to understand that 2+2=4 before you can understand that 2+i^2=1.
You are correct, but in that case it's not the question of what is easier, but what is necessary. "Easier" implies that there is a choice between comparable options, not that one is the prerequisite for the other.
Yes, but using === would have identify such bugs by causing failure of the test rather than running the code for "is true" and getting odd results. The conditional code simply not running will often make the bug (one of the values not being of the expected type) easier to trace than a calculation resulting in 51 instead of 6 ("5"+1 rather than 5+1) at some point later.
You can fix such a bug in two ways: "manually" coerce the values when used, or make sure they get converted to the right type as early as possible. I find tha ltter, along with using === except where you really must have a more flexible comparison, to be the better approach. And if I mistype and skip a = I end up with == instead of = (which would cause a different class of bug!)
It's not about an "inferior API".
The web version of Instapaper is free - but if you want to use a native client on your phone then you either have to pay a subscription fee to get API access, or buy the official iPhone client.
It's really not that strange that inheritance is taxed. People get emotional about it because of death is involved. But in the end it's a matter of money changing hands - even if one of them is cold.
That might be. But that still doesn't change the fact that your children aren't you. If you're hire your son or daughter to work for you then they still have to pay taxes.
I don't like taxes anymore than the next guy. I just don't like the idea that Mr. X should be better of than Mr. Y because Mr. X's grand parents where more successful. You should be able to provide for your children, but it should not excuse them from participating in society themselves.
Mr. X will be better off then Mr. Y because his grand parents were concerned with his education, were able to provide guidance, had influence, were well respected, etc. Why do we allow all other forms of inequality than money?
yes, it should excuse them. if someone wants to bust their ass and make enough money that their children don't have to work hard that is their prerogative, one I would not try to take away from them.
the whole point of productive labor is that it excuses you from certain responsibilities. you choose to work above and beyond subsistence to excuse yourself from future work no? investment is deferred consumption. as PG says, starting a business is like compressing your whole working life into a few years. what is this if not excusing yourself from future responsibilities?
I find the whole notion of social contract theory to be deeply flawed, but that is a very long conversation.
Indeed. How dare they advertise a book by giving advice that relate to it.
The important things to remember when reading books like Getting Things Done and 4 Hour Work Week is that they are not written specifically for you. If you read them, take the advice that fit /your/ life from them - then they're pretty good books.
I read this article as basically: If you feel unproductive at times then don't panic. Which seems like good advice.
Reading it and getting mad because it wasn't exactly what you hoped is not very zen. :)
I think the problem is the exact opposite. It's easier to blame everything on some single, specific thing like high fructose syrup or saturated fat.
If you eat varied and in moderation (and don't sit on the couch all day) then you wont be obese. But politically it's better to blame McD, Coca Cola, and friends than say "You're fat, and it's your own fault".
That was my first thought as well. But it I'm afraid the "right now" is the key part of your first sentence.
It doesn't really seem like TC is trying to help startups with the prize. It looks more like an attempt to push out DEMO so they can become the only major startup demo-event.
The article is written as if DEMO added the prize money as an attack on TC50 and as if DEMO is trying to trick entrepreneurs with fake rates and hidden expenses. None of it backed up in any way.
To me the article look like FUD and the TC50/DEMO war fairly one sided.
Exactly. The post starts with: "Despite our best intentions, it looks like the DEMO v. TechCrunch50 war will continue" but clearly Michael Arrington is fueling the war as much as DEMO is: "if DEMO increases their number, we’ll increase ours to stay at 2x whatever they are at"
Being the peaceful one would be not to react to what the other one is doing...
Godin, or maybe Gladwell (haven't read the book), is missing the point of the "10,000 hours" theory. It is about being "good" at a subject, not being famous for it.
Tiger Woods has spent thousands of hours practicing and is one of the best in his field (and is famous for that). Miley Cyrus is (afaik) not considered among the best actors in the world - she's just famous for landing a disney role.
"Miley Cyrus is (afaik) not considered among the best actors in the world - she's just famous for landing a disney role."
I have to call you out on this point. Miley Cyrus isn't famous because she acted for Disney. There are plenty of child actors who did the same and went nowhere. Miley Cyrus is famous because she is the face of the Hannah Montana brand run by the Disney marketing machine. A brand that has net Disney revenues in the tens of millions of dollars.
You can't deny she is a talented actress, has a great voice, and is generally 'star quality'. A lot of it's just in the breeding and growing up around it all. She's probably done 10,000 hours of watching other people acting + singing while she grew up.
Disclaimer: Sure, I'm a Miley Cirus fan. Admission is first step to recovery + all that.
But then does the impressiveness rest with the Disney Marketing Machine for Hannah Montana. In part it seems like she would be replaceable (or at least - another could havew been picked) with probably no detriment to the result.
The same doesn't work for Tiger Woods or Bill Gates.
> In part it seems like she would be replaceable (or at least - another could havew been picked) with probably no detriment to the result.
Disney doesn't think so - she turned the role down and Disney put the show on hold for over a year while they tried to convince her to do it.
While there's no doubt that that show wouldn't have been nearly as popular without Disney pushing it, it doesn't follow that any cute kid would have been as successful given the Disney push. Disney is constantly pushing kids and only a few make it big.
If you're better than Disney at picking child stars, big bucks await.
Are you kidding? Disney very frequently makes kids this huge. When the kid's a singer/actress, especially so: they've done a good job of marketing her in both directions.
If you write a show entirely around one person, then yeah. You'll put the show on hold to wait for them. That doesn't mean she's particularly brilliant. Just that she's not entirely awful.
Here's the thing: talented song writing very rarely matters in terms of sales. There've been a ton of studies that look at how songs become popular. To some degree it's a matter of being in the right place at the right time.
If Miley Cyrus wasn't part of the Disney machine, she would not have sold millions of albums. She probably would not have gotten a record deal with anybody but Disney. If she did, she'd fizzle out pretty quickly. I've listened to her stuff: it's incredibly bland.
Yeah, props to her for actually releasing an album at 16 - though, again, with Billy Ray Cyrus as a father and Disney as a corporate overlord that's far less impressive than her doing it with no roots at all. But don't mistake that for songwriting talent in the larger sense. Look at the history of young songwriters who made an impact in the past, and you'll see there's a radical difference. They innovated. They made something new. Miley is just recycling old things.
As I said: it's totally fine that you like her. She seems like a sweet and nice girl, unlike, say, Katy Perry, who's worse and more calculating. But don't let your like for something elevate it above what it actually is, which in her case is pretty bland pop music.
This is exactly right, and I had written a comment ripping into Godin's post for that reason.
But then I checked Gladwell's book and he argues that 10,000 hours is the rule for "successful" people rather than the exception (that is, "successful" -> 10K, not 10K -> "successful"), and now I'm wondering if that's really true. Of course, he never really defines what he means by "successful", but by picking Bill Gates and The Beatles, he's probably got his sights set a little higher than The Doors and Miley Cyrus.
Also, quotes from at least one of the researchers who advocate the 10K theory assume that you need 10K to be a "world-class expert" in any discipline. That's a claim that probably needs to be heavily qualified to retain validity, since some of Godin's examples would seem to refute that.
If the site contains any sort of CMS or code generated html then don't remove padding and margin with a wildcard (unless you plan to specifying it manually for every tag).
Some things are supposed to have margin and padding.
(unless you plan to specifying it manually for every tag)
That's exactly what you would do. Knowing that everything has no padding and margin can sometimes make life a lot easier than trying to hunt down phantom default padding and how each browser displays it.
These criteria fit almost anything that requires dedication.
Anything from starting a family to funding a company to joining a professional sports team.
(except maybe "They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives, and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled." but I don't see how startups are isolated and have their access to information controlled.)
But I think the main thing is that for people beginning programming it's better to have less flexibility. In most production system it might not matter that 5=="5" but it's important for beginners to understand how different types work. And it helps give a better insight into how if statements, and boolean logic in general, work.