1. 11

    These icons look terrible to me (not an icon designer…) It seems what they did was try a few designs and ask around in some kind of association game until no one was able to associate the icon with anything and then define them to be protein and fat. The approach at least seems a good one, ask many people around the world for feedback to avoid the obvious mistakes, but maybe they took it a little too far.

    “We have accomplished our mission: keep the information simple, easy to understand, language-free and top line.”

    The “Calories” icon sure has a lot of text for being “language-free” /s

    1. 3

      I think if you judge it on “do I know at a glance what this icon means”, I’d agree.

      However, I doubt that’s their primary goal: I think McDonalds is trying to find universally acceptable (i.e., not evoking negative images) iconography so they can have one homogeneous icon set used around the world with local translations to satisfy local labeling requirements.

      In other words: it’s cheaper to do the design and layout once for all their cups, containers, etc. and a spot on the menu that says (three circles) = “salt” (in whatever language).

      1. 2

        From the five final icons, I would have only guessed the calories one correctly. The “universal icons” clearly don’t seem to be working for me.

      1. 54

        Ugh. I’m pretty happy sticking with Python 2, but this post is so bad I’m tempted to switch to Python 3. Even as a joke the Turing complete section is just stupid.

        1. 23

          I couldn’t tell whether the Turing Complete section was a joke or just profoundly confused, to be honest. Conflating the language with the bytecode, claiming that one VM can’t run the bytecode generated by another language (or maybe complaining that the bytecode changed? or that there’s no py2 compiler targeting py3 bytecode?), and trying to tie that to a fundamental property that even “languages” like SQL and Excel have ….

          It was all very muddle-headed.

          Don’t get me wrong, I know he’ll claim that it was a joke, later. That’s not in question. I’m just not sure if it actually is a joke.

          1. 20

            I don’t think this is meant as a joke. The “post” is a chapter in his book Learn Python the Hard Way.

            Difficult To Use Strings

            Wait.. what? Strings are a mess in Python 2. They have been cleaned up in Py3.

            Python 3 Is Not Turing Complete

            No comment.

            Purposefully Crippled 2to3 Translator

            It took me about one day of work to port a 70k lines django application to Py3 with the 2to3 tool. That’s was one year ago. Since then I’ve only found two bugs caused by the conversion. Doesn’t seem that bad to me.

            Too Many Formatting Options

            Yes, I can agree with that. This is the only valid criticism in that chapter.

            1. 15

              I agree, but just as a data point, it’s taken about 3 people-weeks for us to port a large (~200kloc) Django application (over the course of several months).

              The points that made this take a while:

              • We tried to maximize the amount of changes that were Py2 + Py3 compatible. This meant pulling things in over time, heavy usage of six, and catching a lot of bugs early on. Highly recommended for easy reviewing by third parties. For example: a couple changesets that were just “use six for more imports”.

              • we deal with many different encodings, and a lot of old text-to-bytes conversion code was pretty brittle. Py3 forced us to fix a lot of this

              • imports! 2to3 generated way too many false positives for our taste (hard to review the real changes), so it took a while to find the right solution (for us: a monkey-patched six that would minimize changes)

              • changes of standard API from lists to iterators generated a decent amount of busy work. Changes for the better, though.

              • Handling binary files. Here, too, we were often doing the wrong thing in Py2, but it would “just work” before.

              • Lots of dependencies that we needed to upgrade to get the Python 3 support.

              • Pretty minor things around bytes’s defautl __str__ method. For example, checking the output of a process call, we would do if output == "'0'", and that would fail because `“b'0'” != “‘0’” but that turned out to cause more issues down the road.

              • issues around pickling + celery. Our solution mostly centered around lowering usage of pickle even more (dangerous)

              • deployment issues. Juggling Python 2 tooling and Python 3 tooling in the CI pipeline would sometimes mess things up.

              1. 4

                I can only recommend https://pypi.python.org/pypi/modernize

                Instead of translating x.iteritems() to x.items(), it translates it to six.iteritems(x), and adds the six import. Fixes 80% of the boring stuff and you only need to focus on unicode/bytes, etc.

                1. 2

                  The idea of Python 3 was to make iteration cleaner the easier to read and understand. Now we have to insert calls to six in every loop and for every string. The result is hideous code that’s harder to read, not easier.

                  1. 2

                    I was writing this because

                    We tried to maximize the amount of changes that were Py2 + Py3 compatible

                    If that is not your objective, you can just use 2to3 and be ready.

                    By the way, I really do not understand, why the CPython devs haven’t kept iteritems() as an alias to items() in Python 3 with a deprecation warning to be removed in Python 4. I cannot imagine that it would have been a massive maintenance effort. But on the other hand, making a function call instead of a method call is not rendering code unreadable. I have never heard a Python dev complain about calling str(foo).

                    Essentially, Python 3 adoption has not been slow because of “readability”, but because Python 3 bundles fairly boring changes (iteritems->items) with this massive unicode change (requiring quite a few changes to code bases) and few breathtaking new features that weren’t available in 2.7. This changes at the moment with Async, matrix multiplication operators, etc.

              2. 3

                Python 3 Is Not Turing Complete

                No comment.

                Did you read the note?

                1. 12

                  If anything, the note make it seems like he’s really serious about his Turing FUD.

              3. 9

                Joke or not, the fact that we even have to ask that question significantly harms the credibility of the article.

              4. 5

                Just out of curiosity, why are you sticking with Python2 for now? At this point all of the major libraries have been ported to be 2/3 compatible. In addition, while there aren’t any huge new features in Python3 (besides the byte/Unicode separation) there has been an accumulation of small quality of life improvements that from my point of view make it very much worth it to switch.

                1. 1

                  Not sure about the comment author, but I’ve personally moved over some of my open source libraries to support both python 2 and 3. Moving larger project is tricky though as it involves updating the language, all dependencies and forking the ones that don’t support python 3.

                2. -7

                  haha

                1. 8

                  Personally, I wouldn’t mind removing voting on comments entirely. Most threads are small enough that if I click through, I read all of the comments anyways. Flagging/hiding is probably enough. Maybe with enough hides, it can propagate to other users to discourage lightweight snark and trolling, but I would hesitate on that.

                  As far as community norms, I have been pretty happy with what gets posted so far. There isn’t much trolling, the comments are generally good, and the topics are interesting. I am not sure what people want to change or enforce here.

                  1. 4

                    Maybe not so much change as define what they are for new users and the scope of moderator involvement.

                    1. 3

                      In that case, I’d strongly prefer to keep it as lightweight as possible. I’d like this community to trust its members as much as is practical. And I’d like to trust the moderators to act as benevolent dictators.

                    2. 4

                      As far as community norms, I have been pretty happy with what gets posted so far. There isn’t much trolling, the comments are generally good, and the topics are interesting. I am not sure what people want to change or enforce here.

                      I fully agree and I also think upvotes/downvotes are one of the reasons this is the case.

                      1. 2

                        My first internet communities were on Usenet, and some of the best discussion I remember was on there. Individual killfiles and moderator removal of persistent trolls seemed to be enough.

                        Nostalgia may be tinging my memories, but I suspect the lack of pressure for approval could help increase comment quality.

                        1. 1

                          It’s really hard to assess that sort of thing … a community can only count on feedback, in general, from people who actively participate in it. When people look in but find a place too hostile to want to get to know, so they leave without ever posting… you’re lucky to ever hear about it. And feedback from people who don’t actively participate is generally ignored, even when it is given.

                          1. 1

                            I’m not sure why you immediately jumping to the assumption of hostility. Looking at some groups I was on (eg, comp.compilers, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/comp.compilers), it definitely isn’t the case.

                            1. 3

                              Killfiles, and any ignore mechanism, seem to imply it to me. I do realize that they aren’t necessarily a sign of an unhealthy community; just a particular type of community. But please read my above remark as agnostic to the specific nature of why newcomers might be turned off.

                              I was on Usenet during that time period, and I can’t say I ever felt welcomed enough to participate more than minimally, but I don’t think it was for any reason now under discussion, so I’m just noting it to say that we do have a little shared context here.

                      2. 1

                        Most threads are small enough that if I click through, I read all of the comments anyways.

                        That’s a good point. While the community is low in number, it’s very easy to just scroll through everything. Doing several Lobsters threads is like one on some other sites. I can sometimes do the whole site that way as there’s more people reading stuff than commenting on it. Probably A Good Thing.

                      1. 9

                        This article could be like two paragraphs. It repeats itself all over. Multiple times.

                        1. 4

                          Is this just a mirror or are OpenBSD taking contributions via pull request?

                          1. 2

                            I believe it’s just a mirror and I doubt contributions are being taken via pull request (although @jcs can confirm).

                            BTW, the mirror has been there for quite a while if I’m not mistaken…

                            1. 4

                              It’s hitting news because of the official link on the openbsd.org website. See the commit.

                              1. 5

                                Or maybe this one ;)

                                1. 5

                                  I prefer this one ;)

                                  1. 1

                                    Yes! That’s the good one! :D

                          1. 10

                            Everything written in the “Virtues of PHP” section is not specific to PHP, but it applies to all CGI based approaches.

                            1. 1

                              PHP, by being embedded in the webserver (classically, and now logically) has performance & deployment advantages over pure CGI.

                            1. 11

                              Nice article, although I don’t agree with the point it is trying to make. I think the mistake is here: “The only way to not cargo cult is to know everything. And nobody knows everything.” Of course you can’t know everything, but you should be educated about the technology you are working with. Also, style guidelines != cargo culting. The purpose of a style guide is to establish consistency. The actual style used doesn’t really matter that much, as long as everyone uses the same.

                              1. 11

                                I already wondered why there are both. It more or less makes sense now. ;) Thank you for the interesting link!

                                1. 15

                                  Auto fsck when you plug in a device?… this is going to make forensics a nightmare.

                                  1. 15

                                    Yes. I don’t get the whole “everything has to be done automatically” philosophy. Apart from security concerns automounters always enraged me. I don’t want a daemon to mount my disk if all I need to do is using fdisk/mkfs or dd.

                                    1. 31

                                      I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest that for most people, most of the time they’re plugging in a disk in order to transfer data to/from it. In that case, automounting the drive is a natural expected behavior that saves time and work for the end user.

                                      While there certainly are users such as yourself who may frequently be making use of fdisk/dd/etc, I suspect it’s a relatively uncommon case in general. I can see how it doesn’t work for you, but I’ve never seen an automount configuration that couldn’t be disabled by an informed user.

                                      Given that, “enraged” seems a bit of an extreme response to such tools.

                                      1. 13

                                        It’s even one of the common jokes I remember people liked to use 10 years ago re: Linux on the desktop. USB drive on windows: plug it in, it shows up. USB drive on OSX: plug it in, it shows up. USB drive on Linux: [consult dmesg to find device names, issue cryptic series of command-line operations, probably after su'ing to root]

                                        1. 12

                                          i thought with windows it was: “plug it in, congratulations your machine is now infected!”

                                      2. 4

                                        I don’t get the whole “everything has to be done automatically” philosophy

                                        Getting ready for Linux desktop?

                                    1. 7

                                      We are in the same situation. 4 years of Mongo and it’s a pain now. We moving to an other db.

                                      Performing real-time analytics on blobs of data Curious about why ?

                                      1. 3

                                        Same thing here about three years ago. To be fair, I don’t think mongo was to blame here, it just wasn’t a good fit for the kind of data we were handling (mostly relational). Not having someone with mongo experience on the team probably also did it’s share.

                                        1. 1

                                          Yes you’re right

                                      1. 2

                                        The only argument in favor of supporting printf(“%s”, NULL) -> “(null)” that comes to my mind is to aid debugging. Using something like fprintf(stderr, “Whatever: %s”, s) for debugging and getting a “Whatever: (null)” back is somewhat more helpful than the process crashing.

                                        That said I believe the advantages of not supporting NULL in printf outweight the disadvantages: Simpler code, early crashes in case of unexpected NULL and you can’t count on (null) working anyway, because it’s not required by any standard.