Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Submission + - IOCCC29 has opened. (ioccc.org)

Submitted by achowe
achowe writes: The IOCCC opened the 29th contest earlier this week and will run until 13 March 2026. Once more keen C developers can submit their tiny confusing programs showing off the oddities of C.

This year the Rules & Guidelines have had a major overhaul, the first since the contest opened. They had grown somewhat lengthy, so the Rules have been trimmed and the Guidelines reorganised by Rule number, general material, and FunðYdamentals.

In addition the `mkiocccentry` tool chain has been revised, moving hardcoded rules into a table driven system for easier maintenance. Landon Curt Noll has published videos on Patreon explaining many of these changes.

Submission + - IOCCC28 winners announced (ioccc.org)

Submitted by achowe
achowe writes: Yesterday there was a (long) live stream presenting 23 winners for IOCCC28. The C programming contest has been on hiatus for four years, while being retooled. With four years for developers to wait, there were a large number of quality submissions that had lots of polish that both surprised and pleased the judges.

Video of the stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (4h30) was interesting, but the summary appears on the IOCCC web site for those who can't sit for the whole thing.

Submission + - IOCCC 28 starts tonight UTC! (fosstodon.org)

Submitted by achowe
achowe writes: The IOCCC.org web site has been completely overhauled and made ready for the next contest to start later tonight UTC. From IOCCC Mastodon account `@ioccc@fosstodon.org` :

```
The IOCCC28, the 40th anniversary of the IOCCC is now scheduled to run from **2024-12-29 23:58:13.213455 UTC** to **2025-04-01 23:29:31.374143 UTC**!!!.
```
Participants should join Mastodon to keep track of announcements of Rules, Guidelines, and tools update notices.

Comment Good programmers work with a plethora of languages (Score 1) 370

My strength and love is "C" and more recently come to enjoy Erlang. Currently work in NodeJS Javascript. Been studying Rust with growing admiration, though not had occasion to use it yet. Wrote a hosted Forth interpreter in C (yeah I know) just for fun and curiosity. Worked with Lua and Rexx, both of which are great. Have done lots of Shell (Ksh, Bash) scripting. Wrote cyber cafe time management system for Windows in Java. Done some work in C#, which is surprisingly good given it was created by Microsoft. Dabbled with Ruby and Python, probably will again. Done many a web site using PHP. Worked with WSL (Waterloo Systems Language, now discontinued I think) for a co-op job. Long ago wrote a Pilot interpreter in Z80 assembler. Know some C++, though I avoid it like a plague. Once learned Perl, but have come to despise it and intend to kill those brain cells with booze.

Comment Vegetarian Headhunters (Score 1) 477

by achowe (#57153702) Attached to: Recruiters Are Still Complaining About No-Shows At Interviews

In all my professional life, I've never once found work through an employment agency, which I think are disgusting parasitic, often offshore outsourced, rancid vermin. Every job I've had has come from word of mouth or direct ad by the employer. Intermediary agents are horribly stupid. I've never blown off an interview with a company that does show interest, but would happily do it with a recruiter given I have zero respect for them.

On the other hand I understand being ignored by employers who don't reply to job seekers. I think I've had only three negative replies to job inquiries in my life, the rest just leave you hanging. So I can understand the "bale if not better" mind set. If employers want to be taken seriously then they need to at least play nice with potential employees.

However in today's thrifty world, sending out N negative replies by post or even email is often too much a burden (hassle) for a business, so they leave applicants hanging; only fair turn around if an applicant does like wise.

Comment CERT Secure Coding Standards (Score 2) 220

by achowe (#56184357) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Would You Teach 'Best Practices' For Programmers?

Start with the CERT Secure Coding standards, especially for C programmers it covers many of the "gotchas" to watch out for.

        SEI CERT C Coding Standard: Rules for Developing Safe, Reliable, and Secure Systems (2016 Edition)
        https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/...

Apparently they them for other languages like C++, Java, Perl.

Submission + - Oracle may have stopped funding and development efforts on Java EE (arstechnica.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: ArsTechnica is reporting that Oracle has quietly pulled funding and development efforts away from Java EE, the server-side Java technology that is part of hundreds of thousands of Internet and business applications. Java EE even plays an integral role for many apps that aren't otherwise based on Java, and customers and partners have invested time and code. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened, but the implications are huge for Java as a platform.

Submission + - Frontier Teams With AT&T To Block Google Fiber Access To Utility Poles (arstechnica.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: Frontier submitted a court filing last week supporting ATT's efforts to sue local governments in Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky to stop a new ordinance designed to give Google Fiber and similar companies access to utility poles. They're concerned the ordinances will spread to other states. Frontier's filing said, "the issues raised by the case may have important implications for Frontier's business and may impact the development of law in jurisdictions throughout the country where Frontier operates." The ordinance in Louisville lets companies like Google Fiber install wires even if ATT doesn't respond to requests or rejects requests to attach lines. Companies don't have to notify ATT when they want to move ATT's wires to make room for their own wires, assuming the work won't cause customer outages. ATT claims that the ordinance lets competitors "seize ATT's property." Frontier is urging the court to consider the nationwide implications of upholding Louisville's ordinance, saying Louisville's rule "is unprecedented" because "it drastically expands the rights of third parties to use privately owned utility poles, giving non-owners unfettered access to [a] utility's property without the [...] utility in some cases even having knowledge that such third-party intrusion on its facilities is occurring." Frontier said companies should be required to negotiation access with the owners if they didn't pay to install the utility poles. They urged the court to deny Louisville Metro's motion to dismiss ATT's complaint.

Submission + - Judge Dismisses Movie Piracy Case, IP-Address Doesn't Prove Anything (torrentfreak.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: In what's believed to be a first of its kind ruling, a federal court in Oregon has dismissed a direct infringement complaint against an alleged movie pirate from the outset. According to the judge, linking an IP-address to a pirated download is not enough to prove direct copyright infringement. In the Oregon District Court, Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman recently recommended dismissal of a complaint filed by the makers of the Adam Sandler movie The Cobbler. According to the Judge both claims of direct and indirect infringement were not sufficient for the case to continue. What’s unique in this case, is that the direct infringement claims were dismissed sua sponte, which hasn’t happened before. To prove direct infringement copyright holders merely have to make it “plausible” that a defendant, Thomas Gonzales in this case, is indeed the copyright infringer. This is traditionally done by pointing out that the IP-address is directly linked to the defendant’s Internet connection, for example. However, according to Judge Beckerman this is not enough.

Submission + - Federal Court: The Fourth Amendment Does Not Protect Your Home Computer (eff.org)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: The EFF reports that a federal court in Virginia today ruled that a criminal defendant has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in his personal computer (PDF), located inside his home. The court says the federal government does not need a warrant to hack into an individual's computer. EFF reports: "The implications for the decision, if upheld, are staggering: law enforcement would be free to remotely search and seize information from your computer, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any suspicion at all. To say the least, the decision is bad news for privacy. But it's also incorrect as a matter of law, and we expect there is little chance it would hold up on appeal. (It also was not the central component of the judge's decision, which also diminishes the likelihood that it will become reliable precedent.) But the decision underscores a broader trend in these cases: courts across the country, faced with unfamiliar technology and unsympathetic defendants, are issuing decisions that threaten everyone's rights.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A mind is a terrible thing to have leaking out your ears." -- The League of Sadistic Telepaths

Close