The Skill Collapse"If Only You Knew How Bad Things Really Are"

Walt said:
I absolutely hate Visual Basic, it has no pointers.

I enjoy Java, C, and C++. I am mostly working in the machine language of FPGA's, which is not programming in the conventional sense. I create libraries the plug into regular programming languages(C++, Python, Java, Rust, R).

My guilty pleasure is Javascript. It is like riding a moped, not cool looking, but cool feeling. I always end up doing complex self-modifying code in it.
Click to expand...
Guess you don't do much cloud programming. 'Javascript' is a colloquial term. It's not even Java or Java-like. That's pretty a normal mistake for someone doing FPGA work though.

The problem with Visual Basic isn't the lack of pointers.
 
Walt said:
There is private methods and variables, which can only be accessed within the specific class. Then there is public methods and variables, which can be accessed by any class. Finally there are protected methods and variables, which can only be accessed by the class, or subclasses.

As a general rule, protected variables are a mistake. It destroys the encapsulation of the variable. You can have subclasses that base their entire workings on a protected variable. If you change that, or should I say when you change that, all sorts of classes you did not even know existed start to break.

Back in the 1980's, C++ changed how their strings worked, without telling anyone. Normally everyone's programs would break, but they did encapsulation so well, that no one even noticed. That is the goal.

A major problem with the method and field modifiers for compiler writers is that there are several modifiers before you know if it is a variable or a method. Gosling apologizes for that all the time.
Click to expand...
Nope. A protected variable does not destroy the encapsulation of a variable at all.
 
Diogenes said:
Is that the only reason Ford gave?

Henry Ford implemented higher wages for his workers through the introduction of the $5 workday in 1914, which was significantly higher than what was offered by competing automakers at the time. There were several strategic reasons for this decision:

  1. Reduce Worker Turnover: The work in Ford's factories was repetitive and physically demanding, leading to high turnover rates. By offering a higher wage, Ford reduced the turnover, which in turn decreased the costs associated with hiring and training new employees.
  2. Increase Productivity: Higher wages motivated workers to work harder and more efficiently. Ford believed that better-compensated workers would be more productive, which was crucial for his assembly line system where speed and consistency were key.
  3. Stabilize Workforce: A stable workforce meant less disruption on the production line, which was vital for maintaining the pace of assembly line production. The $5 day helped Ford to keep experienced workers, reducing the learning curve for new employees.
  4. Consumer Market Expansion: Ford's philosophy included the idea that workers should be able to afford the products they produce. By paying his workers more, he was essentially creating a market for his cars among his own employees, aligning with his vision of mass production and consumption.
  5. Publicity and Morale Boost: The $5 day was not only about economics but also about public relations. It garnered significant positive attention, positioning Ford Motor Company as a progressive employer and boosting employee morale, which indirectly contributed to productivity.
  6. Alleviate Labor Unrest: At the time, labor movements were gaining strength, and there were increasing demands for better wages and working conditions. By preemptively raising wages, Ford could mitigate potential labor unrest that could disrupt production.

These factors combined to make the $5 workday a landmark decision that not only benefited Ford's business model but also had a significant impact on labor practices in the United States. However, it's worth noting that the wage increase came with conditions, such as moral conduct requirements, which were part of Ford's broader philosophy on labor management.


@Grok
Click to expand...

Ford emphasized the ability of industrial capitalism to pay higher wages and sustain a more prosperous country compared to financial capitalism, which eventually bankrupted everything it controlled. He has been proven right. One of his books here:


A very good explanation of his economic beliefs. All those other benefits were a result of capitalizing industrial equipment, then higher wages, and in turn higher productivity.
 
Walt said:
There is private methods and variables, which can only be accessed within the specific class. Then there is public methods and variables, which can be accessed by any class. Finally there are protected methods and variables, which can only be accessed by the class, or subclasses.

As a general rule, protected variables are a mistake. It destroys the encapsulation of the variable. You can have subclasses that base their entire workings on a protected variable. If you change that, or should I say when you change that, all sorts of classes you did not even know existed start to break.

Back in the 1980's, C++ changed how their strings worked, without telling anyone. Normally everyone's programs would break, but they did encapsulation so well, that no one even noticed. That is the goal.

A major problem with the method and field modifiers for compiler writers is that there are several modifiers before you know if it is a variable or a method. Gosling apologizes for that all the time.
Click to expand...
C++ does not use strings.
It does have a String class in the stl, but is not a string.
 
EdwinA said:
Ford emphasized the ability of industrial capitalism to pay higher wages and sustain a more prosperous country compared to financial capitalism, which eventually bankrupted everything it controlled. He has been proven right. One of his books here:


A very good explanation of his economic beliefs. All those other benefits were a result of higher wages, and in turn higher productivity.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure @Grok already explained.
 
EdwinA said:
Ford emphasized the ability of industrial capitalism to pay higher wages and sustain a more prosperous country compared to financial capitalism, which eventually bankrupted everything it controlled. He has been proven right. One of his books here:


A very good explanation of his economic beliefs. All those other benefits were a result of capitalizing industrial equipment, then higher wages, and in turn higher productivity.
Click to expand...
Capitalism is not bankruptcy.
There is no such thing as 'industrial capitalism' or 'financial capitalism'. There is just capitalism.

Capitalism is the voluntary of products or services for voluntary sale at the agreed upon price (the free market). It is the only economic system that creates wealth.

You cannot blame the government borrowing too much on capitalism.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Those companies want code monkeys because it's another job Americans are unwilling to do. Well, these days the under 30 crowd are damn near unwilling to work at all...
Click to expand...

It can be farmed out to a company working out of an abandoned container in Mumbai. Most Americans can't work cheap enough to live in a dumpster in the parking lot at MS.
 
Into the Night said:
Capitalism is not bankruptcy.
There is no such thing as 'industrial capitalism' or 'financial capitalism'. There is just capitalism.

Capitalism is the voluntary of products or services for voluntary sale at the agreed upon price (the free market). It is the only economic system that creates wealth.

You cannot blame the government borrowing too much on capitalism.
Click to expand...

Yes, certain types of capitalism will lead to nothing but bankruptcy. Financial capitalism sells nothing but debt; the more debt they can sell the more money they make, and the resulting bleeding of the corpse lead to it's death eventually. Wall Street just sells debt; it produces nothing. Industrial capitalism's management has entirely different goals, reducing costs and increasing productivity. Financial capitalism merely wants to suck the life out of everything and leave the suckers bankrupt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top