www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Re: Go rant

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

 It should be "should be", for the same reason and in the same way that the 
 "waterfall" development model *should be* taught: Presenting it up front as 
 conceptually-easy-but-generally-a-bad-thing-to-do will help people identify 
 it and therefore avoid it. Not teaching about it increases the chances that 
 they'll either rediscover it or come across a usage of it without actually 
 noticing that there's a problem. It would be like selling sodium without 
 including a warning that it explodes upon contact with water (Or something 
 like that, anyway, I never actually took chemistry...).

Pity, Nick; chemistry was really good fun. Citing potassium would be even better. An accident with pot (K) actually happened to someone I knew at high school and the result was rather ugly. Better still would be to cite rubidium -> caesium -> francium. These elements, all in the the alkali metals group, have an extreme affinity for oxidation i.e. explosion when in contact with, well, oxidants :-) Francium is rather rare though and a the skull-and-crossbone radioactive warning would be more apt for selling this particular alkai metal. Cheers, Justin
Dec 22 2009