Re: No Visible Effect????
This year NatWest "Fraud Department" have twice stopped an online payment to my accountant.......they say It looked like fraud.....
If it happens a third time it's definitely your fault.
40471 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Now, systems are abstracted into so many layers"
That should be an advantage. Layers can and should be isolated except for the specific channels needed to communicate between one layer and the next. The reality is that if they aren't crammed into a single environment on somebody else's computer controlled by somebody else's staff, then even if the layers each have their own H/W there's very likely a common admin sub-net and once access is gained to that it's game over.
"Unless the CSuite is made legally liable .... Nothing will change."
I'm not sure CSuite are roles defined in law but directorships are. Vague words such as "responsible person" could be aimed at CxOs but used by them to direct responsibility so a scapegoat down the food chain. So let's stick with directors. Make it a specific item in directors' duties written into company law: get hacked, get prosecuted quite possibly get sued by shareholders and get banned from holding future directorships (executive summary).
Agreed UCSD was non-GUI. I was using it on a Z80 and there was no underlying OS, only the BIOS. But I did use it to control micro-spectrophotometry equipment which required low-level access to the H/W for the ADC board on the S-100 bus, the extra 4-bits of ADC I added on a home-built board, the stepping motor for the diffraction grating and the HP plotter. Don't ask me how I did it because it was a long time ago and seems extremely improbably when I write it but it all worked. AFAICR it included the ability to write and call Z80 assembly so that was probably involved as well.
The main issue of "Pascal" was it was not portable across platforms.
UCSD p-System was in that, like Java, it defined a virtual processor and compiled to that processor's "machine" code, the virtual processor being implemented on a number of different platforms. The original Apple Pascal was UCSD with a 6502 implementation of the p-machine.
Kylix was badly received because it didn't work well. The IDE was Delphi on a customised version of WIne with a cross-compiler. I had code that compiled under Delphi but threw a spurious compilation error under Kylix. The real problem was that it got left behind. It was released, IIRC, towards the end of the version 2 kernel era and didn't get updated for version 4 when a lot of the underlying libraries changed. Nothing to do with Linux "purity", Borland let it die.
"I always think a OO language is just the non OO one where the object reference (self, this) has crawled under the procedure name and advertised (->) itself to the left of the now rechristened method"
In order to do that the language also needs to provide for the definition of methods accompanying data structures. That's the feature that makes it an OO language.
Code can be written in an OO style in any language that provides some form of data structure, much as a Basic style program can be written in an other language; it's just that adding OO features to the language makes it easier. (Writing an OO program that is, not a Basic one!)
I've used both but my initial step was Pascal to C. I found them to be the pessimal* distance from each other for learning one from the other in that they do similar things in quite different ways. It's a very long time since I used C. Come to think of it, it's a long time since I've used Pascal either except for a few toy applications for my own use but as they've been GUI applications for Linux they were written with Lazarus.
* I thought I'd made it up but it really is a word.
"Almost completely and utterly wrong, but interesting."
An admirable illustration of the "all you have is a hammer" principle in taking an inappropriate use of OO as a counter example of the whole in favour of sequential data processing and pipelines.
As a counter example I'd offer my little Object Pascal file card program with different card types for text, tabular and image data, an absolute natural for OO in presentation. For storage, however, I had two options, a database (underlain by a set approach) such as SQLite or text which involved sequential processing.
Or my crossword assistant. It would be unreasonable to expect SWMBO to construct a grep command so it gets encapsulated in OP with the output displayed in a TMemo object.
Successful application development requires thinking in whatever mode is appropriate - OO, sets (OO fundamentalists freak out at the idea of an RDMBS), sequential or anything else that springs to mind.
Pragmatism is the true approach.
The usual chant is "fine them more, imprison the directors", but there's little evidence that works
How many directors have been personally brought to book for security breaches? don't recall seeing that reported here and I suspect it's none. If it isn't specifically in the list of directors' responsibilities it would be hard to make the charge stick.
"Reorganise and simplify your tech, because if your internal systems are connected to the net, you are vulnerable."
We need it to be mandatory that for major failures like the British Library, M&S, the Co-op etc there are reviews as to how the damage spread so widely and how the system might have been designed to avoid that. As with air accidents, the findings need to be then applied more widely. To back it up, responding to such findings needs to be made a part of directors' fiduciary responsibilities - neglect them and if your company gets hacked you can be fined, sued personally by shareholders and banned from holding directorships in the future.