Of course, in Clojure, which I mentioned above, you could use several alternative techniques. Multi-dispatch methods. Protocols. And then, a CAS might not even be implemented directly in Clojure, but in some type of pattern-rewriting language itself written in Clojure.
There IS a department charged with overseeing congress. That would be the 'intelligence community'. (Sort of like the non-specific word "intellectual property" and similarly slimy, in that it's several different things.)
The problem is that Feinstein and others don't seem to be fully committed to doing as they are told.
On one hand Feinstein will support back doors and making all cryptography insecure for all users in the US, when told to do so.
But on the other hand, she is being insubordinate and can't seem to let the torture report thing go when the 'intelligence community' wants it to go away.
At an earlier point in time, even after acquiring Java, Oracle also had no problem with Android.
The Standard C library has had its API re-implemented many, many times. On many platforms.
So why is it a problem that Apache Harmony re-imiplemented the Java API. That is, used hard work to build a compatible system.
Nobody thought this was a problem until Oracle brought this case. And the case was not about this. But since Oracle couldn't seem to win on any other grounds, this is what they morphed their case into.
There is a reason why Java is widely used for very large projects. And it's not because of 'dumb programmers' (referencing another post here).
It's for Maintainability.
If you change something in Java, which makes it the wrong type to be passed to a function -- then that is a COMPILE TIME error, not a RUN TIME error.
In modern IDEs, these compile time errors show up instantly as you are editing the code. And one change can introduce a gigantic number of errors. For example, change the type of argument to a function, and you may have suddenly created hundreds or thousands of compile time errors in your project. And you can see all those files affected instantly get little red compile error flags next to them almost the instant you make this change in the editor.
That instant reaction is because the IDE has a sophisticated database model of the source code. That editor is not just a simple text editor. Every keystroke is making database changes to the internal representation of the source code model -- which is deeply integrated with the compiler.
Now I'm not knocking dynamically typed languages. I happen to like Python. I happen to especially like Clojure and other Lisps.
But in a large commercial project, I want as many errors as possible to be compile time (which usually means edit time) errors rather than run time errors.
Sure, one might argue that adequate testing can exercise all of the possible code execution paths. But are you sure? Really sure? Willing to stake a very large amount of money on it? What if a new code execution path is introduced later but a test is not introduced to test it?
I would argue that for unit testing, you should consider the compiler as your zero'th line of unit testing, before you run the first unit tests.
I understand the great productivity of dynamic languages for projects of a certain size. There comes a point where it is actually more productive to have strong typing with good tools that can analyze everything.
The argument of having to wait for a compiler is ancient history. The analysis of your code is done on each keystroke.
Ah, but Comcast can CONTROL those boxes under contract terms, in order to award those manufacturers with a contract to build Comcast's craptastical boxes.
That's why everyone wants a comcast box instead of their own, cheaper box, with more features.
It's all about control. If just any ol' riff raff could build boxes, how wold Comcast be able to abuse you with ad tracking, viewing tracking, and maybe even listening in to what is going on in the room where you are watching. Not to mention the possibility of building a camera into the telescreen, or um, set top box.
I sympathize with any large tech organization trying to keep out hostile malware. Including the House of Representatives tech team.
Here's a clue for the Representatives themselves. (And the Senate)
Maybe you should be working to STRENGTHEN internet security instead of UNDERMINE security. Internet security works both ways you know.
Maybe the FBI should give up the exploit it has used in its Evidence Laundering (aka "parallel construction") as a network investigative technique?
I would also point out, imagine if the House of Representatives network encryption had a back door, (euphamism: "golden key") and the hacker got hold of the back door. If such a back door exists, the hackers WILL find it. Everyone else would like to keep their networks safe just as you do.
Should you: (A) hand over the exploit so that Mozilla (and other software projects) can make everyone safe (B) keep the exploit to yourself because you don't want bad guys to know about it
How about you take the same advice that you give to the 'nerds' and 'geeks' who should work out how to build your mythical Golden Key?
A Golden Exploit. It works for the government to hack into people's systems and perform your NIT (network investigative technique), but it doesn't work for hackers and bad guys that would make everyone less safe.
C'mon, you can do it. Just as you think silicon valley can do it.
Oh, wait. Maybe the government is part of 'the bad guys'? Maybe that's why we have the 4th, 5th and other amendments.
Maybe the court should order the FBI to produce such a magical Golden Exploit?
Do you realize what could happen if scientists are allowed to openly state reason, facts, data and interpretations of data for just anyone to hear? Especially if those facts and data are inconvenient and undermine some vast profit making enterprises?
How about a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" science policy?
Public statements on science can be announced by the government after consulting the bones or alternately chicken entrails if bones are not available.
Gov't official 1: OMG!!! We're Going Dark! People are able to communicate in secret!
Gov't official 2: I have a solution. Get rid of FOIA. Get rid of the constitution and the inalienable rights it recognizes. Have secret courts, warrants, arrests, trials, evidence, convictions and secret prisons.
Citizen: Now that the government is 'going dark' or opaque, does that really help government to understand terrorists better? Maybe by becoming more like them?