Refuse to be terrorized (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/08/71642 <comment><USER2> Good article but it'll never be read by those who need to read it most.

Unfortunately terror has now been institutionalized. The TSA is a massive bureaucracy that generates jobs and cash flow. It's not something that will ever be dismantled overnight. That's not even mentioning the political convenience it provides: with it politicians can keep us afraid, thus getting our votes when they promise to protect us.

It goes deeper than just fear of terrorism though. Having spent the last few years traveling the world and seeing how other people live, it's always shocking to return to the States to see how afraid everybody is of even the smallest things. Fear seems to have become a centerpiece in the American psyche, and long before 9/11. We even raise our kids to be afraid (see some of the vitriolic responses freerangekids.wordpress.com gets in response to advice like, "It's OK to let your kid ride the bus alone"). Fear of mundane things giving you cancer; existential fear about the economy, which many of us don't even understand and as individuals, have no control over; fear of walking the streets alone at night; fear of getting sick if we don't use antibacterial soap after each bathroom trip. Fear of someone spiking your Tylenol. Uncontrollable fear of a country across the ocean maybe having WMD's.

No, fear of terrorism is just the latest in a laundry list of things Americans have scared themselves with. Until we learn to control that basic fear response, the TSA will still be around and people will still be scared of sitting next to a dark-skinned man kneeling in prayer.

<comment><USER3> The US is a more aware society. Just because they are talked about in the news, doesn't make someone afraid, just more aware of the dangers in society.

"fear of walking the streets alone at night"

It depends on where you live. If I'm in Detroit, then yes, I will be a little more apprehensive about walking on the streets alone at night. It's just common sense.

"Fear of someone spiking your Tylenol"

If someone hacked into your servers and destroyed data through a weakness, would you fix the weakness or just restore the data and go on with your day? The Tylenol weakness has been fixed. It's the smart thing to do.

"Uncontrollable fear of a country across the ocean maybe having WMD's."

I love how you slipped this one in here. I actually would love for the US to stop all military actions and then have a major terrorist attack. I know I would be the first to blame all of the people who said we were too "paranoid".

It's funny because the reason people can sit and talk about all of these things we don't need is because all of the precautions we have in place are working. Kind of like the person that's bi-polar that stops taking their meds because "I feel fine, why should I keep taking them"?

"Until we learn to control that basic fear response, the TSA will still be around and people will still be scared of sitting next to a dark-skinned man kneeling in prayer."

Until the people in the middle east get their shit together, we will need it. We don't know how many attacks have been prevented because of high security (IE: not even bothering to try).

<comment><USER2> Your view is exactly the kind of fear I'm referring to.

Re. Tylenol, 7 people died in an isolated area, and the response was national legislation and money and materials spent tamper-proofing every drug made since then. People are still scared of Halloween candy being tampered with (which in and of itself has never been recorded as happening). By that logic, we should have outlawed cars years ago; more than 7 people die _every day_ in accidents.

Re. military action, the occupation of Iraq had little to do with stopping "terrorists." If you recall, we invaded because of our fears of WMD's--which of course, turned out not to exist. You would also do well to recall that we _have_ had terrorist attacks since we invaded: remember the shoe bomber, or the underwear bomber, who both successfully smuggled explosives into a plane after military action had begun? Only their own incompetence and the alertness of the passengers prevented tragedy--the military had nothing to do with it. To suggest otherwise is, frankly, simple ignorance.

Finally, I'm reminded of a Simpsons quote: For $100, I can sell you a rock that prevents tiger attacks. It really works: I've never been attacked by a tiger since I bought my own rock!

<comment><USER4> "Re. military action, the occupation of Iraq had little to do with stopping "terrorists." If you recall, we invaded because of our fears of WMD's--which of course, turned out not to exist."

No, we invaded Iraq for oil and because a certain Commander CodPiece was a bit too big for his britches. Remember all those oil contracts that were put into place before we invaded? WMDs were an excuse, not the reason.

Many years later, the US is still bleeding money and lives because of this idiotic decision.

<comment><USER5> No, look at the Vice President and whose pocket he was in. Guess who the largest percentage of contracts for Iraq was? Iraq War was a jobs program for the industrial war machine framework. Not oil..gov contracts worth billions

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It amazes me that people freak out when they see "Muslim-looking" people on flights. The politically-correct response is along the lines of "OMG That is highly prejudicial!", but that's irrelevant. From a purely practical perspective, why would a terrorist leader send an attacker whom many Americans immediately view as "suspicious", when he could send someone who appears more "normal"?

On another note, people these days still puff out their chests and say the terrorists couldn't change our way of life. Good one. Another fallacious line of reasoning is that we can destroy terrorism by military action alone. Tell that to the teenage boy who just lost his family to an errant US bomb in his Afghan village and now has a massive amount of pent up rage, and nothing to lose.

If the conditions are right, terrorism can always regenerate itself. The way to fight it is to alter the conditions. To do this we must understand why people hate America. Contrary to popular belief, it's not that we are secular or free. Osama bin Laden himself asked that if he wanted to attack secular, democratic states, why didn't he attack Sweden? I'm obviously not condoning terrorism, but the key to beating it is understanding it on at least a basic level. Unfortunately, our leaders in the past 10 years have been more inclined to drop bombs than to know the enemy.

edit: I'm not saying military action is inappropriate. It clearly has been effective in many cases.

<comment><USER3> yeah, well, 9/11 still happened with people that didn't appear "normal".

"The way to fight it is to alter the conditions. To do this we must understand why people hate America."

We should bend over backwards to make the terrorists happy so they don't attack us? What if they hate us because we aren't part of their religion..is the answer to make the US a Muslim country? Negotiating with terrorists that clearly aren't interested in negotiating is not what we should be doing here.

<comment><USER7> Nice flamebait. I'll resist the urge to resort to profanities.

You seem to be very much stuck in an "us" and "them" mindset. You also seem to be missing several things. No one said anything about bending over backwards. As for negotiating, who exactly is there to negotiate with in the first place? You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there's some kind of top secret terrorist government hiding somewhere, and that "they" are secretly hatching evil plots to destroy "America". (Because apparently America is the only country that's ever been targetted by terrorists? Get over yourself.)

And who suggested making the US a "Muslim country"? The very notion is ridiculous. The US claims to be a "free" country after all, with freedom of religion. There's nothing stopping Muslims from worshipping Allah as much as they please in the US. Nor should there be. And there sure as hell shouldn't be anything to stop "them" from getting on planes, looking at their watches, praying, growing big beards or walking around in whatever outfits they damn well please.

<comment><USER3> "Nice flamebait. I'll resist the urge to resort to profanities."

Nice way to get out of a discussion.

"As for negotiating, who exactly is there to negotiate with in the first place?"

You said we should try to figure out why they are angry with us..as if it's the fault of the US for getting attacked (blaming the victim).

"You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there's some kind of top secret terrorist government hiding somewhere, and that "they" are secretly hatching evil plots to destroy "America". (Because apparently America is the only country that's ever been targetted by terrorists? Get over yourself.)"

Nice flamebait. In Many other countries, they have full-on profiling with armed guards on each plane. It seems to work pretty well on the middle east.

"There's nothing stopping Muslims from worshipping Allah as much as they please in the US. Nor should there be. And there sure as hell shouldn't be anything to stop "them" from getting on planes, looking at their watches, praying, growing big beards or walking around in whatever outfits they damn well please."

I never said they shouldn't be stopped. However, if there are a high number of attempted attacks and the description of the attackers match the type of people coming onto the plain, the TSA should be allowed to question/detain those people.

It's this type of thinking that stops a newspaper from putting a description of a criminal because it's not politically correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Five years latter, the U.S. has institutionalized a terrified attitude, at least with respect to air travel. At this point, the only thing that might compel me to put up with the useless, degrading, indignity of U.S. air travel would be a dire family obligation - like a funeral - which I couldn't meet in any other way. I am appalled that my fellow citizens demand this abasement.

<comment><USER9>
      I am appalled that my fellow citizens demand this abasement.

Many demand the opposite, but there is no political mechanism that would listen to them specifically. They need to convince the rest first, then it can be done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This has always been one of my biggest issues with "counter-terrorism". If the costs of fighting terrorism outweigh the damage that a genuine terrorist group could inflict... who really wins?

As a US citizen, I don't doubt that _some_ of our spending has directly stopped particular terrorist plots. However, my point for the past ~10 years has been: they [terrorists] are tricking us into burning money chasing them around the world. If we had invested a fraction of this to take care of people who have suffered from non-terrorist causes we would result with a net benefit.[1]

I want to reiterate that there undoubtedly threats to be addressed, but sometime I wish that politicians (and a fair amount of the general population) would leave the whack-a-mole terrorism game alone, take their (our) coin home and find something better to do.

[1] Admit, this is an assumption. But I don't think it's a huge leap.

<comment><USER11> >they [terrorists] are tricking us into burning money chasing them around the world

The terrorists are not the ones gaining financially and they are not the ones tricking us.

<comment><USER10> I didn't mean to say that terrorists are gaining financially or that the "burn[t] money" goes to them. I'd be surprised if that's a real goal.

My point was that regardless of where the money ends up, if it's misappropriated then it's a waste.

<comment><USER11> I understood your point, and don't disagree.

Terrorism is overblown as an excuse to spend the money in ways to benefit certain industries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A satisfying read indeed. Schneier hits the target right in the middle. I feel exactly the same way about this terrorism. Even though I personally haven't been to the US, what I see in the news, in movies and on television is enough to tell me that Americans are indeed living in fear.

However, I do not blame the American (and other) people for hating us (Muslims). I blame the media. I blame the politicians. I blame the terrorists. We may also disagree on the definition of a terrorist. I may tell you that an Afghan militant defending his country and his people against invasion by shooting at American soldiers (this differs from taking innocent lives) is not a terrorist, but a soldier, regardless of his nationality, or who the soldiers he's shooting at are.

But in the end, people, Muslims or otherwise, who shamelessly attack, bomb or torture innocent people, people who did them no harm, nor presented any threat to them, nor attacked their country or their people, are terrorists.

Indeed, what is happening today in America and in several other countries regarding escalating security measures and incessant leakage of threats is simply the result of governments wanting to control their people (see "1984") by using the media to their advantage.

I mean, seriously, think of the guy who tried to detonate a bomb located in his shoe whilst in an plane. Why didn't he go to the toilet and detonate it there? The terrorists I know from the media aren't that ignorant.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is years old, maybe submitter should mention that.

<comment><USER14> Still incredibly relevant though. With Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and others confronting the TSA in the House, and last week's court decision requiring the TSA to have a comment period, this issue's going to be heating up again.

<comment><USER15> Relevant, yes, this opinion was put forward by rational people just after the 9/11 : terrorists want terror, don't give them that. Ten years later (yeah, 9/11 happened ten years ago, I feel old) this sensible opinion is still ignored.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> <quote> "The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.</quote>

I know this is not going to be popular because Schneier is a crypto/security God and all but I call B.S. on the above quote.

If you would have given any of the 9/11 terrorists or UBL a button and told them they could wipe out the U.S. and everyone in it by just pressing the button how quickly do you think they would do it? Or do you think they'd say "Sorry, no-can-do. There won't be anyone left to terrorize."?

Their goal is not to terrorize/scare people. Their goal is the total destruction of anyone or anybody that stands in the way of their total domination.

<comment><USER17> Their goal is to maximize destruction given the resources they have. If they had a button that instantly destroy the US, of course they would press it. But the fact is that they don't have such a button; they have very limited resources. Their most efficient use of resources is to make random, very visible and violent attacks and hope that our responses do even more damage.

<comment><USER16> Huh? Just because they don't have said resources to kill everyone in the U.S. doesn't mean it's not their ultimate goal... No one can say whether or not they could eventually acquire those resources via rogue states.

UBL specifically stated that jihadist should NOT differentiate between Military/Government and civillians.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This was well understood nearly a century ago; an awful lot of people know FDR's line that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" but have never thought about it and have no idea what it means.

</comment><comment><USER19> I am really amazed how the whole world wants to ignore one simple fact that until now costs us a lot of lives: (9/11 and many other terrorist attacks all over the world) There is a group of people (mainy Muslim)that want all: Jews, Americans, and "free" world countries to perish or convert the Islam (and if not pay special "Muslim" taxes) This is not a conspiracy and this message is played on national TV in many Muslim countries [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GvsNFWRbM0&feature=share](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GvsNFWRbM0&feature=share) what pisses me off is that most of the word ignores this completely and blames Israel and the US for it because of our foreign policy. What scares me most is that it seems to me like were back to the 1930s when Hitler was talking about killing most non Aryan races and the whole world not caring and doing anything about it. So wake the fuck up and realize that we do have a problem in hand, and it's not a joke many people have died and will continue dying terrorism is a world problem not only American, there were dozens of terrorist attacks outside the US, sorry even more then the US. Any ways wake up people and stop being scared of saying the obvious.

</comment><comment><USER20> But if we refuse to be terrorized, the terrorists have already won!

<comment><USER21> The refusalists will have won.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> A thousand up votes! Keep calm, and carry on.

</comment><comment><USER23> There are roughly 20 Million Flights world wide per year.

During the period of those 5 incidents, there were over 220,000 flights. (4 days)

Yes, it would suck to be on one of those flights, but your chances are extremely low. 00.0023% of flights are impacted. You have less than a 1 in 43,000 chance of being on one of those flights.

But... if you are on one of those flights where there is suspected terrorist activity, at a rate of 1 actual attack attempt per year (I couldn't get an exact number, but I bet that is pretty close) Your chances of being killed quickly become much, much higher at 1 in 365.

I know I will be downgraded because people don't agree with me, but the reality is that terrorism is real, and if I am on a plane, I'd rather them be safe then sorry.

Doing so makes attacks much less likely to succeed which will help reduce attacks.

<comment><USER24> > but the reality is that terrorism is real

Many things are real. Lightning strikes. Car accidents. Meteorites to the head. Tsunamis. Smoking. Fat.

Dying because of a terrorist attack is way, way, way, way down on the list of stuff you are likely to die from, so the only rational thing to do is to worry about the stuff ABOVE it on the list. Like driving. Or eating right. Or not smoking. Get your priorities right.

<comment><USER25> so you wouldn't worry about lightning storms in your sleep, but if you are out in the field during one you'll probably take some precautions? maybe get out from under the tallest tree? You probably wouldn't completely ignore it.

<comment><USER26> Lightning precautions are based on the testable realities of physics. There is no relation between that and the voodoo pseudo-security that is the TSA and public 'security' in general.

<comment><USER23> This is true, it is hard to prove if what the TSA does is actually preventing terrorist attacks. Just because it is not proven does not mean it is not working.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> That's all great, but consider a situation.

I get on the plane and sit next to a guy who avoids eye contact, does not respond to Hi and then starts praying, seemingly detached from the reality. Shall I just ignore this and refuse to be terrorized?

I will tell you more. As someone who rode on a subway train that was next to the one blown up in a terrorist attack, I _will_ walk out of a coffee shop if I see a person leaving a bag behind and stepping outside. I did that when I was single and I certainly still do it now when I have two kids. If there is a sliver of probability that I can be killed due to my inaction, I _will_ act and I will do my best to avoid that risk. If it takes de-boarding someone from a plane, so be it.

<comment><USER28> >I get on the plane and sit next to a guy who avoids eye contact, does not respond to Hi and then starts praying, seemingly detached from the reality. Shall I just ignore this and refuse to be terrorized?

That depends. Are his prayers Christian prayers, or Muslim prayers?

<comment><USER23> Not really, I think it would be strange regardless.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you protect IP in a coworking space? - <AUTHOR> Just heard a presentation from an IP lawyer who basically said that due to some recent changes in the law, if one were to do a "public demonstration" of their IP then they can no longer file a patent for it.
So, if you invented a spark plug and put it in your car and took it for a test drive down the freeway without filing a patent first, you can kiss it goodbye.  The crummy thing about that is if you're working on code and you happen to be working in a coworking space building and running said code, you're essentially on the same boat.
This would apply to coffee shops and other pseudo public places as well.
If that is the case, how do you manage IP? Don't co-work? <comment><USER2> Why would you want to file patents on a software startup anyway?

Whatever you think you've invented, 9 teenagers are right now, independently making the same thing.

Patents in software startups are a waste of money and a huge distraction. In the UK there will soon be tax breaks, but you need to make a profit to worry about those

p.s. if you have a hardware product that genuinely is a good fit for a patent, get out of the coworking space. Try maker spaces that are more suited and will have better processes in place to handle this

<comment><USER3> There are a few different reasons someone might want a software patent at a startup stage. Investors view Patents as an Asset, which can increase your value in their eyes. Legally, they can be leveraged (once granted) to protect a particularly novel idea and minimize competition. They can also be used defensively, protecting you from being sued. They can also be licensed, which means you could potentially generate income.

How much value they have, or if the system works properly is a different conversation entirely. My own personal stance, I'm interested in patents for defensive measures only. Meaning, if someone else tries to sue me over something I created (saying they created it), I have something on my side to protect me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I work at home. I rarely use coworking space, but if I use, I do not exchange ideas with others in public space. One more aspect: I live in Europe, but fill US patent applications (because I can't afford EU patenting process. In my oppinion EU is not friendly for inventors.), so even if there will be some information leak, still idea will not be introduced in US market.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been to and worked out of Si Valley for a while and I think part of the magic of the place is the non-secrecy & collaborative environment in which the techies seem to be in. So, I'm not in the "don't share ideas" school. My question was related to the patent system specifically in the US. So the troubling part is, technically if you go to a coworking space or a coffee shop for an hour a month and happen to work on your code there or compile your code there, you can't file a patent since your work in now "public". Previously there was a one year grace period, but the lawyer informed us that new changes to the Patent Law means that grace period no longer exists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I should start by stating that I am not a Patent Attorney and you should always get legal advice from an actual Attorney. I'm just an Entrepreneur that does not want to pay Attorney fee's and does it all himself (with no legal background).

From my understanding, the recent change in the patent system (March '13) related to the 'First-to-file' modification, which generally means (assuming two inventors invent the same thing at the same time), the first to file will be granted the patent. This is a change from the first to invent approach, which basically meant whoever could prove they built it first was granted the patent. From my perspective, this just means that you have to take the paperwork aspect of patents a little more seriously, and integrate it into your process at an earlier stage.

I did not watch this presentation, so I'm not really sure what that IP lawyer was talking about. But it sounds like it has something to do with Prior Art. The generalized concept here is that putting information into the public domain makes it "known", which would then imply that it is no longer novel. This information would then become Prior Art, which in some cases could invalidate the invention from being patentable. The important thing to consider here is the documentation or record of who put the information into the public domain. If the inventor put the information into the public domain, then it would belong to the inventor, and thus considered a Publication instead of Prior Art. If someone else put the information into the public domain, then it would belong to whoever provided it, not the inventor, and thus counts as Prior Art against the inventor (and thus, not patentable by the inventor). There is a one-year grace period between the time that you disclose the information, and the time that your publication grace period expires. So my understanding from this is that it actually works in your favor to document your IP, as long as you document it properly, make sure you are recorded as the person documenting it, and you follow through within 1 year. In the example of saying it out loud in a room of people (aka co-working space), then I can understand how it might be difficult to validate and record who actually said what. When documented on paper (or what they call, a Printed Publication), then it would be much easier to validate and record who provided the information. To get more information on how to properly document IP in a Printed Publication, here are some guidelines [1]. Aside from the methods described there, you can also leverage something called a Statutory Invention Registration. This basically means you want to prevent the invention from ever being patented by anyone, so you describe the invention and officially record it with the USPTO, and then waive your right to patent it. You can read more about Statutory Invention Registration here [2].

Getting back to your question, if you are really concerned about someone stealing your IP, then read link [1] and use some of those methods to document your IP. You could also go through the process of actually filing an application. I don't think just running your code constitutes as public disclosure (unless you display it on a projector up on the wall or something). A good rule of thumb is to just be careful about what you share, and whom you share it with. If you feel that it needs to be disclosed, then disclose it properly and protect yourself.

[1] [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html)

[2] [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1101.html](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1101.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not worried about someone stealing my idea. I'm more on the side of putting together a tech incubator/co-working space in my local community. It's gotten quite a bit of traction and the IP lawyer was speaking at an event the we were hosting.

Since he brought up that, "public use" or making the information "Known". The part that was new to me was that the "one year grace period" apparently no longer exists! So, according to him, it was implied that if were working out of open-floorplan co-working ideas that we're pushing, you would have essentially contributed you inventions to the public domain and couldn't file a patent on it (since the 1 year grace period no longer exists).

This information struck me as an important thing that anyone working in a shared workspace should know & that perhaps have already worked out. Hence, reaching out to HN.

Here's the info of the lawyer who did the presentation: [http://www.hctlaw.com/pages/professionals/stephen-c- thomas-e...](http://www.hctlaw.com/pages/professionals/stephen-c-thomas-esq/)

<comment><USER3> First off, Congrats on starting your own Co-Working space. That's no easy task, and I commend you for building the startup ecosystem in your area. I see where you're coming from, you want to protect all the people that use your co- working space. Regarding the one year grace period, I should just state that Mr. Thomas (the IP lawyer) undoubtedly knows more about Patent Law than I do. But I think the question should be explored further, because I do not really agree with that insinuation. I should also consider that I was not there, and thus don't want to presume anything (I dont know what was said). I think the best way I can help is just to explain my own understanding of how the AIA (America Invents Act) impacted the grace period, and let you decide (or correlate with your own research). From what I understand; Previous to the AIA, the grace period applied to "all disclosures", meaning that the invention could be disclosed by someone (or some entity) other than the inventor, and still be considered a Publication for the inventor. After the AIA, the grace period only applies to the inventors own disclosures, which means the inventor must disclose the invention himself/herself for it to be considered a Publication. Hope this helps!</comment></comment></comment>


Pipelines and Your Unix Toolbox - <AUTHOR> http://blog.danielcorin.com/code/2019/05/29/unix.html <comment><USER2> Hi, you might like the "useless use of cat" article if you haven't seen it already. It's a shell classic if you ask me.</comment>


Ask HN: Know any other GitHub tricks like: ?ts=2 - <AUTHOR> I discovered a long time ago that you could add the query param "?ts=2" to change the tab spacing when viewing a repo on Github. I couldn't find it documented anywhere or able to save as a default (when viewing random repos). I was curious if there are any others like this?
Here's an example, you can remove the ?ts=2 to see the original width.
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/ec2e767e59395376fa191d7c56a74f53936b7653/pkg/controller/volume/persistentvolume/pv_controller.go?ts=2 <comment><USER2> I've used ?sanitize=true to allow me to programmatically embed renderable SVG content from a repo into Github Markdown comments, etc ...

Example: [https://github.com/org/repo/raw/40082bd3f02dbeb17bd9f72660df...](https://github.com/org/repo/raw/40082bd3f02dbeb17bd9f72660df06d6f470b4e8/some/path/foo.svg?sanitize=true)

Additional Discussion: [https://github.community/t5/How-to-use-Git-and- GitHub/Embedd...](https://github.community/t5/How-to-use-Git-and- GitHub/Embedding-a-SVG/td-p/2192)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've used the w=1 to ignore whitespace in diffs. Found a link [0] with some others.

[0] [https://blog.github.com/2011-10-21-github- secrets/](https://blog.github.com/2011-10-21-github-secrets/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing that link!</comment></comment>


Three Tales of Second System Syndrome - <AUTHOR> http://blog.brentlaabs.com/2015/05/three-tales-of-second-system-syndrome.html <comment><USER2>
        It just might be possible that Perl 6's crazy long development process can
        produce the best-adopted second system around

Unfortunately, I don't share the same optimism as the OP. In the real world, adoption is not only driven by how cool a language is, but the ecosystem of tools and developers around it. There are lots of Perl 5 codebases which won't be migrated because it's too expensive.

The true lesson learned for language developers is: Don't break backwards compatibility. Ever.

The Python community made this mistake, and they acknowledge it. Guido said this won't happen again. But at least for the case of Python 3, the number of breakages is relatively small, and the migration from 2 to 3 while tedious, it's not that hard. Even so, the migration of the whole ecosystem has been really really slow. But I think in the end the community will move.

The Perl case, on the other side, is much worse. Migrating a relatively complex project from 5 to 6 is extraordinarily hard. It's probably the same as a whole rewrite. Also, the community is divided, with some developers keeping the improvement of Perl 5, fixing bugs and adding new features. There is no incentive for migration.

If the migration has been so slow for Python 3, which had a much smaller barrier, I don't see how it could be better for Perl 6.

New languages are able to develop a new ecosystem when they introduce innovative features, e.g. Rust. But Perl 6 while being a nice language, doesn't seem to have any killer feature compared to mainstream languages.

<comment><USER3> The more I think about it, the more I realize that Perl 6 was misnamed. It should have been treated as a new language with some Perl heritage, not just a new version of Perl.

The Perl 5 diehards aren't going to switch, and people who aren't already Perl hackers are going to think it's the same old Perl that scared them off ages ago.

It's a shame, because Perl 6 is a great language (and I say this as somebody who was put off by Perl 5), and the Parrot VM is particularly awesome.

It also has some of the best error reporting I've seen: it offers a number of possible solutions, and if you try to use a Perl 5-ism that's not supported anymore, it'll tell you what the Perl 6 equivalent is.

<comment><USER4> > Perl 6 was misnamed

Damian Conway agrees with you - but Larry Wall decides, and he insisted on calling it Perl 6. Maybe Conway has a point, but maybe so many people wouldn't have worked so hard on it for so long if it was called something else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think the author is mischaracterizing all of these examples; none of them are "second systems" but major revisions of software with large install bases and no built-in update mechanism. They are reliant on distributions and third parties to provide any form of automatic update; oftentimes the upgrade path without distribution-level support is painful for an average user.

Certainly, in the case of PHP, it was a very painful process to get major adoption of 5 - especially as so many of the users are reliant on managed hosting. It took a long time for the install base to grow there; PHP 7 will similarly take a long time to get up there. At least the decision to scrap 6 (a decision also taken in light of all of the literature out there describing the features of 6) was a pragmatic one; PHP 7 is now just around the corner.

What the author is describing are two general problems for any software development where there is a large install-base: development cycles and release management. Just look at uptake numbers for operating systems for an example as to why this is absolutely not a problem confined to scripting languages or even OSS software: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems)

<comment><USER6> The transition from PHP3 to PHP4 and from PHP4 to PHP5 wasn't that painful. At the time, most PHP open source projects simply avoided OO concepts due to their slow implementation in PHP4 and to be downwards compatible with PHP3. It solved the transition as they only slowly adopted class based OO later in PHP5 era. Also the transition period of parallel version of PHP4 and 5 was between 2004 and 2008 - long enough so that most shared hosters were able to make the switch. PHP6 failed, and most planned features were backported to PHP5.3+. As several books were published in the months before the planned PHP6 release, the next PHP version will be named PHP7 to avoid any confusion. Nevertheless, PHP7 isn't a bigger change than let's say PHP 5.2 to 5.3. Overall I would say, PHP's developers and the community has done a great job. Modern PHP.net and HHVM are certainly better than their reputation. The same goes for MySQL and MariaDB.

<comment><USER7> If anything, my takeaway here is that PHP might have handled things the best of the three. PHP doesn't have the huge schism that Python 3 does, and the development cycle isn't nearly as crazy as Perl. Sometimes pragmatism is more important than idealism.

<comment><USER8> We don't know that, because PHP 7 isn't out yet, but also PHP 7 doesn't change in breaking ways. All of the language warts that plagued 4 and 5 are still around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Well, after a little over six years of development, we discovered that we > were never going to see a PHP 6 at all. Having seen how long Perl 6 had > taken, and how long PHP 6 was taking, the number 6 is associated with > failure. So they cancelled PHP 6 and voted to change the name to PHP 7.

Uh, what? Did the author do the most _basic_ of research?

PHP 6 was a real thing, a development branch. But it dragged on for years.

Due to delays, they made an interim release in the 5.x series, PHP 5.3. It backported some stuff from 6.

Eventually, PHP 6 was killed off because it just wasn't going to work. So they made another 5.x release, PHP 5.4, backporting more stuff from 6, and adding some other features.

After that, with PHP 6 dead and gone, work focussed on the PHP 5.x series again. So out came PHP 5.5 (2013) and PHP 5.6 (2014).

During this time, some people did some experiments and realised it was possible, by breaking internal (not userland) compatibility, to greatly improve PHP's performance. This project became phpng. Since it would break so many (internal) things, they decided that if it should be merged into PHP, it needed to go into a new major version.

It was after this that the ridiculous version number vote was held. I don't see why we ever had that debate, really. PHP 6 was a thing and was killed off, re-using the version number was silly. Anyway, the number chosen was PHP 7.

Fast forward to the present day: PHP 7 has gone into feature freeze and should be released in a few months. Alongside the performance improvements of phpng, it has some other new features developed independently, and includes a few deliberate backwards-compatibility breaks.

tl;dr: the time line goes: 5.2 release, work begins on 6.0, 5.3 release, 6.0 killed off, 5.4 release, 5.5 release, 5.6 release, 7.0 in development.

Edit:

> JIT to the Zend engine

...what? No, PHP 7 does not have that.

> Asynchronous IO and functions

...PHP 7 doesn't have that either?

> Standalone Multi-threading Web Server (HHVM)

...huh?

> phpclasses.org

Oh, so that's why the author is so confused.

<comment><USER10> > Oh, so that's why the author is so confused.

So for anyone wondering about this, phpclasses was the answer to PEAR, which itself was trying and failing to be CPAN. PEAR ended up being laughable and underwhelming, while phpclasses ended up being a breeding ground for _some of the worst PHP code on the planet_.

Nobody should be using it and anyone pointing to anything on it as a good example should be laughed at.

Meanwhile, the article author probably needs to read this slide deck from the PHP6 team explaining exactly where the breakdown occurred:

[http://www.slideshare.net/andreizm/the-good-the-bad-and- the-...](http://www.slideshare.net/andreizm/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly- what-happened-to-unicode-and-php-6)

The postmortem starts on slide 60, but the rest is worth reading.

It had nothing to do with second system syndrome at all.

<comment><USER11> Sounds like a disaster. Also funny how anyone discussing PHP's flaws gets met with "oh THERE'S your problem, you decided to use this terrible awful piece of shit thing instead of not doing that". Well why in the hell was that an option in the first place?!

The golf course is full of landmines, and if you bitch about how shitty it is to step on one, nobody goes "yeah it sucks how this course is full of landmines", you're just an idiot because you stepped on one, like an idiot.

<comment><USER12> So you're suggesting that the PHP community at large, is somehow responsible for a single site, that gives bad advice, has bad information, etc.

What exactly is your solution? a SWAT raid to take down this travesty of technology?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There's nothing that will convince the Python 3 haters. So silly. I use nothing but Python 3 and I rarely if ever find I can't move ahead for lack of a library. The Python2 only libraries are just being replaced with more up to date alternatives. This article is total FUD and garbage from yet another Python 2 ideological holdout dogmatist.

This article would have you believe that if you tried to use Python 3 that within hours you would hit a library roadblock that would be a showstopper. Completely wrong, and you have to ask why the author wants to create this perception.

Python 3 works beautifully and is a pleasure to program.

If you WANT to hate Python 3 then you'll find no lack of ways to hate on it for the next 20 years (HEY! I found some package built by a fellow Python2 holdout! See, it simply is not possible to write the code to upgrade it! PYTHON 3 IS FINISHED! THE SKY IS FALLING!) etc etc ...

If you want to succeed with Python 3 then that's easily done, you just get on with it.

No one using Python 3? Flat out lie. Prove me wrong by scientifically explaining your assertion that no one uses Python 3. Lies, spoken to back the wishes of the Python2 holdouts to sabotage Python 3 - they hate Python 3 and will say any lie to bring it down and spread the FUD. I'm wrong? Prove it in detail with science. Alternatively make vague, handwavey statements about downloads, as though that defines how many people are writing code today with a language.

<comment><USER14> I've found exactly the same thing.

As someone writing applications using Python 3, I found the switch to be easy and I haven't had any problems with libraries. I've switched from some of the old ones I was using to more modern alternatives that are being actively developed.

It annoys me that there are people on Python 2 that haven't really tried to make the switch and stand on the sideline shouting insults at Python 3. It's a tremendously self destructive thing to do for all involved.

To anyone looking to get started with Python, there's no real reason to start with Python 2 these days.

<comment><USER15> Libraries are a problem - it's difficult to switch unless _all_ your dependencies are Python 3 compatible. The only ways to fix it are to either use an alternative, or perhaps to fork or contribute patches to the project - both of which take up valuable time when your code is still functional under 2.7.

I'm currently creating 2.7/3.3+ compatible code in whatever I create, but I'm still deploying to 2.7 hosts. For most of my projects this is due to just one package which has some Python 3 related bugs, so hopefully I can just flick the switch soon and use 3.4.

It's only easy when your project depends on a few popular packages (eg. the top 200 where 86% are currently Python 3 compatible [1]), it's much more difficult if you've got a long list of dependencies.

[1] [https://python3wos.appspot.com/](https://python3wos.appspot.com/)

<comment><USER16> Yep, for me, distributions are the biggest thing holding things back right now, because the existing ones are out there, and will be deployed for a long time.

If deploying a .com website, you can control your dependencies completely, and it's much easier than if you are deploying a system that must interact with existing systems the user/customer might have (for instance, management or monitoring apps).

Thankfully that's not a huuuge class of systems, but it's what I typically work with :)

<comment><USER14> I suspect most people don't have to deal with that issue (fortunately, because that must _suck_ ). Is there not some way of wrapping the entire binary with your distribution? If I was working in that space I think I'd probably choose a different language, if possible.

As you say, it's not a problem for most of us as we get to dictate the platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I have my problems with the Python 3 implementation. Unicode is great, but standard library APIs should understand each other without the need to call decode.

I like the way the change was rolled out, though:

1\. Find a defined amount of cruft that needs to be fixed backwards incompatibly, so you do not take 15 years for it or fail completely. Release a new major version.

2\. Make one or two minor releases to the older version to ease the upgrade.

3\. Then STOP developing the older version, work with the community and perfect the new version to get everyone on board.

I think it is the perfect middle ground. If you do this constantly you will not have the need to change everything at once and will also not amass cruft.

The problem with the justification of the author for 15 years of Perl 6 development is, that Perl 6 will have issues, too. Are you going to change them all at once again and take another 15 years for Perl 7?

<comment><USER18> > Unicode is great, but standard library APIs should understand each other > without the need to call decode.

If one "standard library API" generates integers and an other consumes strings, would you expect the second one to take the output of the first one without conversion?

<comment><USER17> No, I would not. To stay with your problematic analogy that differently encoded strings are to each other what integers are to strings:

Would you write a function, that takes either a string or an integer and returns therefor either a string or an integer, so you can not feed the output of this first function into a second function, that is often called after the first, but can only take integers?

Or would you rather say "Okay, we are working with numbers here, lets just take and return integers in this module."?

You can read more about this here:

[http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2014/1/5/unicode- in-2-and-3/](http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2014/1/5/unicode-in-2-and-3/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This post made me move to Python 3. I replaced all print statements, in the code I am currently working on, with print functions, and yum-installed python3 versions of the libraries.

The code ran correctly on first try. Guess I was lucky, should have made the shift earlier!

<comment><USER20> Does your code use division, and do you have unit tests for at least those parts? Because the same code will compile and run in either version, but you'll get different results, depending.

<comment><USER19> Thanks for the heads up. Fortunately I was aware of the kinks with division, so it caused no trouble.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is ridiculous. The author makes it sound like perl6 is more of a success than python3 -- despite python3 being used for real projects for years now, and perl6 being "slow and about to have its first release" (just like it was for the last, I don't know, 7 years?). I mean, come on.

<comment><USER22> IMHO, the practical best-case scenario for Perl 6 at this point is a Lisp-like status where the language itself does not see much commercial use, but ideas from it fuel innovative attempts in existing and new languages. That would be the best-case though, and it might just bomb and be forgotten within months, which in fact seems to be the common expectation from many.

In any case, this was one of the most unabashedly biased articles I've seen on HN, with badly made attempts at revisionistic history. Perl is still my favourite scripting language, but even I have to admit that Perl 6 has little hope of adoption, and Perl 5 is dying a slow and painful death: due to the momentum, clarity and leadership and P6 took away from it. A few ported-back features gained can't possibly make up for the lack of a cohesive vision that resulted from nobody being sure of the status of the Perl 5 language. Subroutine arguments have long languished in interminable bikeshedding due to this (despite actually having a few enthusiastic implementors - a rare phenomenon in P5 world now!), and we have embarrassments like autoderef and smartmatch[1] which reduce people's trust in the language even more.

What makes the situation truly infuriating though, is the snarky and superior attitudes taken by most P6 folk, just like this article exhibits. Even if you begin with an attitude of collaboration, it soon begins to feel like you're talking to King Joffrey, with that ever-condescending smile of his.

[1] [http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=961344](http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=961344)

<comment><USER23> > it might just bomb and be forgotten within months

That seems unlikely for any project with over a decade of work behind it.

> What makes the situation truly infuriating though, is the snarky and > superior attitudes taken by most P6 folk, just like this article exhibits. > Even if you begin with an attitude of collaboration, it soon begins to feel > like you're talking to King Joffrey, with that ever-condescending smile of > his.

Do you have any examples, because I've dropped in their IRC channel occasionally over the years, and it's been nothing but welcoming. The attitude at YAPC (at least in 2013 when I went) was very positive from everyone I heard, from both P5 and P6.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So what is different about the Ruby approach to language evolution? The community has moved forward relatively painlessly from 1.8.x to 1.9.x to 2.x, all of which had breaking changes. Why has change been such an issue for e.g. Python?

<comment><USER25> I think it's largely because ruby use is dominated by a single, pure ruby application domain: rails. Once rails supports the new version, it's easy to move. google "ruby programming" 3.5M hits and "ruby programming rails" 1.6M hits.

In contrast, python has many different application domains, each with their own dependencies that need to be updated, and native code extensions are much more common. "python programming" 38M hits, no single application is a significant percentage.

<comment><USER26> We are not a rails shop but moving to 1.9 was almost entirely painless. I think that is because Ruby never did any release which broke everything. 1.9 did not break that much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I wonder if Typescript will serve as a lesson to us all. It feels like the next generation of JavaScript, and (can) compile to ES(really old) without adding too much ugly Dart-like cruft.

Another interesting subject only slightly touched on here has been the degree to which Perl 6 features have been slowly rolled in to Perl 5; maybe Perl 5.30 will look a great deal like Perl 6.

<comment><USER6> Typescript may serve as another showcase for Microsoft tactics to influence and steer a language (JavaScript/ES6 & 7). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish) You know the Java vs. MS Java (later transformed to C#) - both MS Java/J++ and C# as well as Typescript were guided by Anders Hejlsberg (former Turbo Pascal fame).

<comment><USER28> I try to be as cautious as any free software loving programmer when it comes to Microsoft, but it's hard to see how they could get away with that strategy in TypeScript's case. The code uses the Apache License 2.0 (FSF approved, OSI approved and compatible with GPL v3) and it's been on github for a year with lots of forks.

You don't need to depend on anything from Microsoft for development, I've toyed with TypeScript using Node.js and Eclipse on Linux without issues. And as stated before TypeScript compiles directly to Javascript and they are trying to align their syntax with ES6.

Seems quite kosher. I think at this point if Microsoft tried something shady a community fork is very doable, or if it doesn't happen you can always compile to plain JS and continue working there.

It's really different from the situation you describe because developers and users won't tolerate a MS JS that only works with MS browsers, they have to remain compatible with the others or risk irrelevance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I can run Fortran IV code on a modern compiler without change. 2015-1966=48 years. And counting. Ada95 was a very easy transition from Ada83. Pay attention to users ! Backwards compatibility is MANDATORY for a language.

<comment><USER30> Well, that explains why Fortran and Ada are such wildly popular languages today!

<comment><USER3> In their communities, they are.

Parts of the scientific community still insist on Fortran, and the DOD still loves Ada.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Please consider the time it takes for a new language to be fully developed and to take hold. These major revisions are simply new languages, because they _break backward compatibility_.

Except, um... PHP.

<comment><USER32> Yes, and in the mean time: Go, Rust, Dart, Julia... maybe someone someday will get the sweet spot of performant code that is just plain fun to write. I guess that was the idea with PyPy, but after 15 (?) years that goal is still a ways away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> With regard to Python 3's print statement, I don't understand it. Or rather, I don't understand why they changed only the print statement. If nothing else, raise and assert should have had the same treatment.

And Python 3's unicode handling isn't sane. Or rather, it is saner internally, but not sane on the interface. I mean, recreating `cat` is bad enough. Python 3 made unicode handling slightly easier and byte handling gratuitously harder.

But this is probably bikeshedding.

Personally, the bigger problem is not creating a relatively frictionless upgrade path. If you can't run things on the new version without manual editing, you won't move over unless everything you depends on moves over. Catch-22. Python is slowly moving over, largely because a) it's not generally too difficult to port the code (and largely automated to boot), and b) you can relatively easily write code that works on both versions.

</comment><comment><USER34> My main problem with Perl 6 is that it seems overly large and complex. It is very different from Perl 5, there is effectively no up to date tutorial, and I'm overwhelmed by Perl 6's apparent complexity.

<comment><USER35> Perl 6 isn't as complex as people make it out to be. I have friends who are race car enthusiasts who could go in to _excruciating_ detail about cars and if you don't know how to drive, it could seem daunting. The reality is that most of us get in to our car and just drive.

That's part of the issue with Perl 6: its proponents get very excited about it and write about all the really cool stuff you can do with it, but for those who don't know the language, it sounds intimidating.

Here's a talk I gave at FOSDEM explaining how day-to-day Perl 6 is fairly straightforward and easier than people think: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpu-3UF_b48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpu-3UF_b48)

<comment><USER34> > The reality is that most of us get in to our car and just drive.

I don't mean that the internals appear complicated (I wouldn't know anyway), I mean just learning it as a user appears that way.

> That's part of the issue with Perl 6: its proponents get very excited about > it and write about all the really cool stuff you can do with it, but for > those who don't know the language, it sounds intimidating.

Yes. But it's not just that; trying to read the Synopses is daunting. It's very easy to get stuck there, try for a while on IRC, then give up.

> Here's a talk I gave at FOSDEM ...

Thanks for the link, and for the talk.

<comment><USER36> The Synopses are intended for compiler writers.

The writing intended for users is at [http://doc.perl6.org](http://doc.perl6.org).

<comment><USER34> Unfortunately, even the docs at doc.perl6.org give me the impression that either the language is extremely complicated, or that the docs leave out too many essential details, or both. I don't wish to pick apart docs here though.

I think that what Perl 6 needs if it is to have a chance to succeed is a really good comprehensive and comprehensible tutorial.

<comment><USER36> Right. Imo Perl 6 ought to be fairly easy to learn -- the basics are simpler than Perl 5 for example -- but several parts, of which doc is one, are still weak enough that this simplicity is currently obscured.

If you're interested, I'd be willing to try to personally tutor you (for free of course). I'm raiphmellor at gmail if you want a private email exchange.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Perl, Python, and PHP: or why PHP just sucks because I can't figure out its benefits and Python 3 sucks because change and Perl sucks because Perl. Every language solves some problems well and some not so well. Why does everyone (figuratively) bash other languages simply because they aren't quite right for your particular use case??

<comment><USER20> Because we're instinctively tribal. See: friends don't let friends drive Fords.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This was a fascinating article to me, a python2 user.

I suspect there are three large subsets of readers, where the process described for "their" language is familiar, and those for the other two languages sound like tales of "inside baseball."

I am familiar with the progress and arguments related to python2/3\. I am aware, from a distance, of similar issues with perl5/6 and php5/6/7.

It occurs to me that I haven't heard about similar breaking shifts for other currently active languages, including C and C++. I'm dimly aware that Java recently moved to 8(?) and 9(?) is starting(?). And I wonder about Fortran, which I'm dimly aware still has active users and some standards process.

Can anyone who is familiar with these languages' progress characterize them as breaking and angst-ridden, or smooth and relatively trouble free, and say why? What's different about the process and community from the three languages in the article?

For a possible initial point of contrast, my impression of the three languages' changes are that they are all but new languages that are easy to read for anyone familiar with previous versions.

<comment><USER38> C, C++ and Java generally don't break backwards compatibility in new language versions (or at least not as much as other languages), so upgrading to the next version is usually easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Sometimes I have the feeling that Scala is the "Second System" of Java. But it wasn't designed by the same people who did Java.

<comment><USER40> Scala is Java done even wronger; C# is Java done right.

<comment><USER3> I would argue that Groovy is Scala done right.

<comment><USER41> I guess that's why they just lost their commercial sponsors recently.

<comment><USER3> Popularity != quality.

Or would you argue that Honey Boo Boo was the best show on television?

<comment><USER42> > I would argue that Groovy is Scala done right

The creator of Groovy, James Strachan, said 6 yrs afterwards that if he'd known about Scala at the time, he'd never have created Groovy, so he's arguing the exact opposite viewpoint.

> Popularity != quality

The recent blog by Jochen Theodorou, the tech talent that practically built and maintained Groovy for 10 yrs, at [http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/2015/04/about-being- paid-...](http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/2015/04/about-being-paid-oss- developer-for.html) says about Groovy's quality...

> G2One management adding feature after feature without testing or > documentation

...and identifies that G2One (SpringSource, Pivotal) management as...

> all of the paid Groovy guys... Cedric (developer), Guillaume (manager and > evangelist) and me (developer) had to leave Pivotal

Groovy has two use cases:

* scripting Java (tests, Gradle scripts)

* providing a M.O.P. for Grails

If you want to actually build a system on the JVM or Android, use Java or Scala or some language created specifically for that purpose. Groovy was built as a dynamically typed language, with static typing features shunted on much later, and hardly anyone uses them. Groovy's for quick and dirty scripts, like those 30-line Gradle build scripts (unless you need readable stack traces then you're out of luck).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I think that Brooks' Second System Syndrome assumes that there is actually a compelling reason for the second system. A language is more subtle in that the value there is mostly in the convention of how to do things. In any case where you make a big change to a language there are always going to be people who either don't agree with the change or simply don't think the change is worth the bother.

There are zillions of proposals for new languages around at any particular moment in time. Very few ever become popular. If you significantly change a currently popular language then there is a good chance that you will fall off the side into unpopularity.

</comment><comment><USER44> Except Perl 6 isn't a "Second System", but rather a "Third System"; Perl 4 (for whatever god-forsaken reason) is to this day still mentioned in the Perl documentation in various places, despite being about 2 1/2 decades old and having been effectively abandoned in favor of Perl 5 for nearly as long. Perl 4 and Perl 5 are pretty much entirely different languages, and Perl 6 is just an extension of that heritage.

The 5->6 transition might be more painful because of how long Perl 5 has been around and in active use, but this isn't exactly new to a whole lot of veteran Perl programmers.

</comment><comment><USER45> What does Java do differently that it doesn't seem to have adoption problems?

<comment><USER46> 90% of Java 1 code works on Java 8.

There are still enterprise apps stuck on Java 4, 5 and 6.

<comment><USER47> More importantly, bytecode produced by old Java compilers still runs on new VMs.

I believe that if Python 3 had been able to call into Python 2 modules (even by embedding CPython2) adoption would've been better.

<comment><USER48> I think byte code compatibility is gone now, its supports the current and previous versions only.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Unfortunately, most of this post is just content-free snark, pissing on certain (phases of) languages with no effort whatsoever to provide any insight beyond the author's prejudice.

Apparently the "gratuitous negativity" guideline doesn't apply to content.

Edit: And let's not forget that 99% of the criticism levelled at those languages has nothing at all to do with Second System Syndrome. That very valid subject is apparently just an excuse to go on a rant.

<comment><USER50> He's attempting a general comparison, concluding that each language took a different gamble and he looks forward to seeing how it turns out for all three.

He doesn't piss on anybody. Honestly, to me your comment is more "gratuitous negativity" than the blog post is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Too sad to see so many efforts on Python 3 although nobody is using it...

<comment><USER52> One data point: the smartcard library [https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyscard](https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyscard) is still not Python 3 compatible. Six and a half years and counting.

<comment><USER53>
        Downloads (All Versions):
        0 downloads in the last day
        0 downloads in the last week
        0 downloads in the last month

<comment><USER54> That's what I saw, plus the description mentions Windows 2000, but if you go to the SourceForge page:

        206 Downloads (This Week)
        Last Update: 2014-12-13

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I imagine this would be a similar problem if C++ tried to get rid of all the crap that's been layered onto it over the last decade.

</comment><comment><USER56> MySQL also started version 6.0 and then stopped developing it. They also tried to fix the unicode support (utf8mb4 by default).</comment>


Microsoft Refuses to Open Source VB6 - <AUTHOR> http://www.i-programmer.info/news/136-open-source/7454-microsoft-refuses-to-open-source-vb6.html <comment><USER2> Perhaps they don't want to expose a lot of IT-dullard companies that _still_ rely on VB6 to a ton of security issues. If a company is still relying on VB6 apps, it's very likely they neither have the talent, know-how, nor funds to competently defend their code.</comment>


Dan Frommer Quits Business Insider to Start 1 Man Tech Site - SplatF - <AUTHOR> http://www.betabeat.com/2011/07/06/dan-frommer-leaves-business-insider-to-start-splatf-2011-07-06/

<comment><USER2> Dan's edited my occasional contributions to TBI for years. He's easily the best responder to breaking news in the tech world; he writes well, he writes fast, and he remembers the past. There's a reason he has site-wide sponsorship from the get go.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've worked with Dan, and he knows his stuff. Looking forward to seeing what he's got in the works.

</comment><comment><USER4> Whats the sound of wet mud hitting the floor?

</comment><comment><USER5> Wait, does Frommer have actual tech skills to build an app? Or this mysterious cooking project...

<comment><USER6> That is why Gruber is more entertaining to read. Well that and you might actually learn something. Frommer is looking for cash and that will hurt content, unless he hires right...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What a godawful name. Impossible to pronounce correctly without sounding like you have a speech impediment.

Good example of quirkiness gone too far in the world of branding.

<comment><USER8> It's two words: Splat F</comment></comment>


SQLite cannot drop columns - <AUTHOR> http://www.sqlite.org/faq.html#q11

<comment><USER2> Other databases can't drop columns either. In most cases (row-based databases such as the default storage on pgsql, microsoft, oracle, mysql etc), dropping a column, if that syntax is available, internally rebuilds the table with the column omitted.

The data are stored in row-major order (they are in sqlite too) and to drop a column, you need to effectively rewrite every existing row (at least, all the ones where that column is non-null)

<comment><USER2> Essentially, ALTER TABLE ... DROP COLUMN is just syntactic sugar, you can do the operation equally efficiently (albeit with more complexity) with other statements.

In any case, sqlite CAN at least drop indexes, which is something that some versions of MySQL did quite badly (without a table rebuild)</comment></comment>


Nationalize This - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123362405866441891.html <comment><USER2> If I remember correctly, the Swedish government nationalized their financial system in a way to ease the pain from the credit crunch, and it worked out well.

The main argument against these series of bailouts would be that it creates inflation of the currency. Of course, this is only be thought of now when we're attempt to fix infrastructure across the nation, or saving the jobs of workers, instead of bailing out banking systems too large to fail.

American businesses are operating at an unlevel field, partially because the criminalization of vertical integration (the Japanese do this for their automotives), compared to other nations in the world.

My 2c.

<comment><USER3> My problem with "nationalization" is that people treat it as some sort of atomic, unique thing, where we either "nationalize" or we don't.

In reality, it's way, way, way more complicated, and the debate borders on the useless, because _how_ and _what_ is nationalized, and _how_ the nationalized assets are managed matters a lot, and nobody ever discusses those.

Right now, I see no great reason to believe that the government is staffed by people particularly likely to even _try_ to use their brains to decide what to nationalize or how to run it, let alone succeed. Right now what I see are a bunch of politicians running rampant with no regard for reality... which always has the last word.

That's _my_ problem with the bailouts. Putting politicians in charge of our companies to solve problem the politicians credibly created in the first place (without admitting it, and I fear they actually believe they are blameless, not just putting up a front) doesn't seem like a recipe for success.

<comment><USER2> In the situation of the financial sector's bailout, some had speculated it would have been better to have not done anything. It would leave us more money to allocate and loan (not give) the companies which employee the average American worker who doesn't live bonus to bonus.

As for nationalization, it should start at the Federal Reserve which is as much Federal as Federal Express. What a screwed up system we have where our government is forever in debt while we use The Federal Reserve Note as our currency.

<comment><USER3> I hate to reply with this sort of thing, but I gotta say "live bonus-to-bonus" is a great turn of phrase. Google says you're basically the second person to use it in the context of the current economy. (There are two others but not really the same context.)

(I hope there's a little room in the HN credos for some positive feedback.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This reminded me of a quote from Fight Club: "Only after disaster can we be resurrected." Sometimes things need to fall apart so they can be rebuilt into something better.

The approach the United States government is taking is similar to using duct tape to fix a house. Its bringing short term stability but we may regret it in the long run.

<comment><USER5> Exactly. It remains unclear to me how the housing crisis can be "fixed" until the underlying home values fall in line with historical price:income ratios. That is, either real incomes must rise significantly, or real housing prices must decrease much more than they already have. Anything short of that will serve only to delay the inevitable.

<comment><USER6> If the downturn is slow and steady there may be time for adjustments, as opposed to a crash.

<comment><USER7> Actually, I think the best advice to let it happen as quickly as possible. Otherwise resources will be misappropriated thus making the problem worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I suppose <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexicurity> will be good for America.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you want to unlearn or relearn in 2016? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> See: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11791832](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11791832)</comment>