Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Best of Verity Stob

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the in-jokes-for-in-jokesters dept.

110

Alex Moskalyuk writes "For 17 years, a British programmer who calls herself Verity Stob has been entertaining the readers of Dr. Dobbs Journal, EXE and The Register with her witty humor and variety of writing styles, which has now been collected into book form. In the foreword to the book, Danny O'Brien from NTK says that before the days of Dilbert, Futurama, User Friendly and Slashdot, the market for geek humor was dangerously under-served. So Verity attempted to add a little humor." Read on for the rest of Moskalyuk's review.

Stob's writing is hard to categorize. It's both humor and satire, sometimes just overwhelmingly funny and sometimes barely causing a chuckle. It's British, so some things passed way over my head. Since she started her writing back in 1998, there are references to mainframes, Unisys systems and the days when you would call tech support and instantly get a human being on the other end. Nevertheless, the book is entertaining, although it's more of a coffee table book, where you can pick it up and start on any page, than book where you'd go chapter-by-chapter.

Her humor is original and versatile. Poems, stories, scripts, hacked diaries, parodies -- the book has them all: after all, it's a collection of the best of her writing. She's an experienced C++ programmer who had been in the Windows world for a while, so frequently the jokes relate to C++ peculiarities. Such as Thirteen ways to loathe VB (written in 2000):

Calling functions and accessing arrays. In most languages you can distinguish between a call to function F with parameter 3 an a reference to an array F with index 3, because one is written F(3) and the other F[3]. In Visual Basic they're both written F(3). Yes.

Her 2001 article for DDJ is actually nothing but a screenshot of a page called Dotdotdot with the subtitle Where nerds go on and on and on and... followed by a paragraph-long article titled Microsoft does something and a bunch of upset comments from the readers including a poster spelling out Look at me! in large letters in the first post.

Or her parody of George Orwell's 1984 which talks about Way After 1984 and describes Winston Smith's typical day:

As he entered the lobby, a breeze stirred the 60-foot banner suspended high above from the roof. The three oh-so-familiar slogans of the Ministry were printed across the banner in large letters: REGISTRATION NOT LEGISLATION MONOPOLISATION IS INNOVATION WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO TODAY?

See another sample of her writing, which those who've had to go through code reviews will especially appreciate.

The book is organized chronologically, with Verity's early writings listed first, and some of the unpublished material included at the end of the book. Overall, it's a pretty good and entertaining read, although in many cases the chapters made me scratch my head trying to get to the point of the joke. It's especially difficult with parodies, since if you don't quite know what is being parodied, it's hard to get the joke. The Register has another review and those British journalists called it painfully funny.


You can purchase The Best of Verity Stob from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who is driving? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12315944)

Bear is driving!

How can that be (first post)?

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316014)

Can't go wrong with modding a Clerks reference up!

Re:MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316116)

For those of you who want a better alternative to slashdot which isn't full of errors, redundancy, and trolls:
http://news.google.com/nwshp?topic=t [google.com]

Slashdot has had their era, and their popularity, unfortunately their time must come to an end. We must make the editors know they must work harder to keep our loyalty.

Re:MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316342)

At least the dupes have ended.

Re:MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12320616)

Huh?

Re:MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316685)

which isn't full of ...... trolls:

Just because they speak the truth and you don't like to hear it, doesn't necessarily make them trolls.

Re:Who is driving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316066)

Super american dance party!!

Re:Who is driving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12320605)

Tom Cruise! Oh no! You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! Show me the money! Oh no!

I love you (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12315956)

XXXX

Re:I love you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316310)

Wuvv you too schmoopykins! Now remove your Depends and lay down on the washing machine.

Where's today's google stories? (1)

Shut the fuck up! (572058) | more than 9 years ago | (#12315962)

Their profits are up. I thought if google coughed, it made the front page.

Re:Where's today's google stories? (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316001)

I thought if google coughed, it made the front page.

Only if they turn their head first.

Re:Where's today's google stories? (0, Offtopic)

youknowmewell (754551) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316019)

You must have pissed off a bunch of people to get an automatic -1 Score for your comments. Nice.

Never heard of her. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12315965)

Well, I've been involved in computers and programming for 18 years and I've never even heard of her. Then again, I don't read those crappy mainstreamed business journals.

Re:Never heard of her. (3, Insightful)

jericho4.0 (565125) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316716)

If you've never heard of Dr. Dobbs Journal, you know a lot less about computer programming than you think you do.

Re:Never heard of her. (3, Insightful)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316761)

You're openly admitting that you've been in the industry for 18 years, and have never read Dr. Dobbs Journal? (Nor apparently have any clue as to what it is)

I can see that if you just entered the industry this millenium, but to be old school and not know about this publication is bordering on sacraligeous. One of the best technical programming journals there is.

Re:Never heard of her. (1)

sjmadsen (14439) | more than 8 years ago | (#12318468)

One of the best technical programming journals there is.

Make that was. I stuck with DDJ for years until it suddenly occurred to me that the vast majority of the articles had become novice-level material. This was probably back in the late '90s. Maybe it's improved since.

Re:Never heard of her. (1)

vsprintf (579676) | more than 8 years ago | (#12318959)

One of the best technical programming journals there is.

The editorials by Jon Erickson alone are worth the price of admission. DDJ is a magazine that knows what's happening in the computing world -- well as long as you ignore Pournelle's column anyway.

Re:Never heard of her. (1)

pointyhairedbossman (878308) | more than 9 years ago | (#12319717)

Verity Stob is brilliant. I thought most of you folks were familiar with DDJ. Guess not. In any event, if any of you would like to get to know DDJ better it's on me... for the time being anyhow.

What's the catch? You will still have to register (nothing I can do about that) and fill out all those questions you love to hate but the link below will give you DDJ's premium/all access ($20 charge normally) for free. I'm reserving the right to pull it down pretty much any time but I'll try to leave it up for the weekend.

Cheers everyone. If you are not interested that's cool. My only point is to give something back, even if for a short period of time, since I read /. everyday. If you are interested, enjoy.

http://www.ddj.com/registration/?skeycode=DWSLDT01

For those of you having problems registering please send email to their webmaster who will likely get back to you on Monday... :)

Re:Never heard of her. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316918)

> I've been involved in computers and programming for 18 years and I've never even heard of her.

In that case you deserve the zero mod.

Yours sincerely,
the AC moderation board.

Re:Never heard of her. (2, Informative)

ipb (569735) | more than 9 years ago | (#12317011)

"crappy mainstreamed business journals"
Started in the mid 70's and originally called "Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics and Orthodontia" subtitled "Running Light without OverByte" it's one of the best and longest running technical computer journals out there. Here's a link to help further your education.
http://webreview.com/ddj/history.htm [webreview.com]

Used to read DDJ in the 80's .. (1)

torpor (458) | more than 9 years ago | (#12317177)

.. but stopped in the 90's.

if you don't read DDJ, or its a 'mainstreamed business journal', what sort of programmer-tech literature/magazines do you read?

Re:Used to read DDJ in the 80's .. (1)

vsprintf (579676) | more than 8 years ago | (#12319172)

if you don't read DDJ, or its a 'mainstreamed business journal', what sort of programmer-tech literature/magazines do you read?

MSDN. What else could he possibly need to keep up with leading edge technology, security, and OS developments? After all, it's purely about programming and has nothing to do with "mainstreamed business".

Re:Never heard of her. (3, Funny)

turgid (580780) | more than 9 years ago | (#12317978)

Well, I've been involved in computers and programming for 18 years and I've never even heard of her. Then again, I don't read those crappy mainstreamed business journals.

Quite right. Stick to the museli, natural yoghurt and hemp-fibre smocks.

Amusing (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 9 years ago | (#12315976)

But she's no Thursday Next.

Re:Amusing (0)

iplayfast (166447) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316192)

Are you from the outland?

Tell me, if two people are in a room and one left so the other was left, which of them was left? They can't both be left... right?

OH, yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12315979)

... before the days of Dilbert, Futurama, User Friendly and Slashdot, the market for geek humor was dangerously under-served.

So I clicked, and ...

Nothing to see here, move along.

And so I thought, "And apparently, it still is!"

Dilbert? Seriously? (1)

Cumstien (637803) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316097)

I hate to see Dilbert in a "funny" list with Futurama, Slashdot I can understand.

Re:Dilbert? Seriously? (1)

Ignignot (782335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316669)

Ditto for userfriendly! The strips seem to be a regular formula:

1: Hi
2: Some guy gets hurt
3: Haha the guy got hurt.

Re:Dilbert? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316992)

> 3: Haha the guy got hurt.

Butbutbut, don't we love it when the marketroid gets it?

Re:Dilbert? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12318246)

That is a major improvement of the early days of userfriendly

1: Hi
2:
3: Some guy gets hurt

How about virtual hunting? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12315982)

these people are serious [live-shot.com]

What next, virtual shooting fish in a barrel?

Re:How about virtual hunting? (1)

youknowmewell (754551) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316037)

Virtual shooting Anonymous Cowards...

*Bang* Modded -1 Offtopic.

Typo (4, Informative)

14erCleaner (745600) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316021)

Since she started her writing back in 1998, there are references to mainframes, Unisys systems and the days when you would call tech support and instantly get a human being on the other end.

That should be 1988. By 1998 things had already gone to hell, tech-support-wise.

I'll contribute to the cause (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316092)

I'll give her the best head she's ever had.

Anytime, anywhere.

Re:I'll contribute to the cause (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12317347)

Never before have I so agreed [bookpool.com] with an AC.

Slashdot == geek humor ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316117)

I though it was a news site...

Well that explains a lot... silly me

dotdotdot (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316129)

Gotta admit, the dotdotdot [ddj.com] article does seem to ring a few bells.

Re:dotdotdot (1)

vsprintf (579676) | more than 8 years ago | (#12318414)

Gotta admit, the dotdotdot article does seem to ring a few bells.

It is currently Slashdotted. Ha, that'll teach 'em! Dotdot that. :)

So why the low rating? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316133)

A 6/10 is pretty low - especially for here; yet the review doesn't point out many flaws, except that the reviewer didn't understand some parts of the book.

Speaking of User Friendly... (2, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316158)

The crew is down in Australia... User Friendly [userfriendly.org]

Re:Speaking of User Friendly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316889)

-1, Totally-Lame-and-Unfunny-Webcomic

Re:Speaking of User Friendly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12317031)

Don't ever link User Friendly. It is boring. Thanks.

Re:Speaking of User Friendly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12317485)

LMAO

Keep up the good work!!

Re:Speaking of User Friendly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12318935)

OMG I think I threw up a little in my mouth when I went to that particular comic.

Canada, I believe ... (1)

elfuq (89094) | more than 9 years ago | (#12319700)

http://www.userfriendly.org/contact/

UserFriendly.Org
140-8380 Lansdowne Road, Suite 716
Richmond,
British Columbia
Canada, V6X 1B9

But all us Commonwealth folks sound alike, right?

Re:Canada, I believe ... (1)

magetoo (875982) | more than 9 years ago | (#12320726)

Yes, you are soundink wery much the same... (It's almost funny if you followed the GP link.)

You say array access, I say function invocation... (1, Interesting)

cbiffle (211614) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316201)

Disclaimer: I've been up to my nose in language design lately, as a hobby to distract me from OLTP work. ...yes, I'm a geek.

The reviewer quotes a passage where the author complains about array accesses and function invocations in VB. Now, as a former VB wonk, I hate it as much as anyone outside of the FSF, but I'm not sure I agree with this.

From a certain point of view, having array accesses and function invocations be indistinguishable is a good thing. I mean, what is an array, if not a function over an integer domain that produces discrete results? I think we've all substituted sine functions with lookup tables before. (Okay, maybe not everybody.)

VB even goes a bit farther, using the function invocation syntax (e.g. "F(x)") only for functions that return values. Void functions (subroutines) are called as "F x". At least back when I was doing VB. So really, functions are more like arrays to the programmer than they are subroutines.

On the other hand, as a Smalltalk fan, I'd argue that having a dedicated array-accessor syntax is just sugar anyway. I'm going to crawl back under my desk now.

Re:You say array access, I say function invocation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316440)

How the hell is this offtopic? It is probably the only post that has ANYTHING to do with the book or author.

Re:You say array access, I say function invocation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12317057)

You didn't expect the moderators to read, did you? Or understand? Hardly anyone reads the articles anymore.

That is why it is heading for the drain, comments have declined drastically last year.

Re:You say array access, I say function invocation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12318213)

Last year?
God this place went crap in 2000. Wake up!

Re:You say array access, I say function invocation (3, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316728)

The reviewer quotes a passage where the author complains about array accesses and function invocations in VB. Now, as a former VB wonk, I hate it as much as anyone outside of the FSF, but I'm not sure I agree with this.

The author is showing either bias (real or feigned for humor value) or ignorance. Given the context (computer humor) and the medium-old-hand status of someone who has been writing it for (only) 17 years.

The original language (Fortran) used parens for both subscription and function arguments, as did most of the languages of the time.

If I recall correctly, there were no square brackets on the 026 keypunch keyboard (though there might have been an overstrike code assigned for them).

EBCDIC and ASCII had square brackets. But terminals and keypunches using them weren't widely deployed until the late '60s or early '70s.

Re:You say array access, I say function invocation (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316772)

Oops, left off the end of the sentence.

The author is showing either bias (real or feigned for humor value) or ignorance. Given the context (computer humor) and the medium-old-hand status of someone who has been writing it for (only) 17 years. ... I'm voting for it being feigned bias for humor value.

Re:You say array access, I say function invocation (1)

Urusai (865560) | more than 9 years ago | (#12317430)

Ada had a similar problem. 'Nuff said.

Re:You say array access, I say function invocation (2, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | more than 9 years ago | (#12317795)

Is there a BASIC that doesn't work this way? I can't blame it on VB when CBM BASIC, GWBASIC, QuickBASIC, VAX/DEC/HP BASIC for VMS, and TI BASIC all do the same.

Re:You say array access, I say function invocation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12318088)

On the other hand, as a Smalltalk fan, I'd argue that having a dedicated array-accessor syntax is just sugar anyway.

Yes, for instance in Ruby "[]" is just a method like any other, just with a funny calling syntax (there is also "[]=").

Example:

class Object
def [](s)
puts s.reverse
end
end

Call with:

foo = Object.new
foo["hello, world"] # outputs "dlrow ,olleh"

This, like many other things in Ruby, makes it super-easy to refactor your code. Replace an Array with a Hash, or with your own class.

Yeah, the Smalltalk and Lisp fans got bored after the first sentence, but I thought I'd point it out.

Re:You say array access, I say function invocation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12319087)

As far as you go, I agree with you.

Where this gets really distressing is that VB has a special feature that means that when you write (foo), what you're doing is requesting the default property of foo.

This leads to the deeply unpleasant distinction between f(var) where f is a function, which means 'call function f with var as the param', and s(var) where is a subroutine (VB for a function with no return value), which means 'call subroutine s with the default property of var as the param'.

If 'var' is, say, a textbox, and it's default property is its string contents, then you'll you have a very unobvious bug.

The solution, if you were wondering, is to say 'call s(var)', in which case it does the right thing, and pass var to the subroutine directly.

Treating arrays as classes is fine as far as it goes. Using (obj) as a method invocation on obj is as evil as you can get.

Verity Stob (2, Informative)

Merdalors (677723) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316217)

Verity Stob writes the funniest, wittiest stuff on programming I have ever seen. She obvioulsy knows what she's talking about.

I used to read her column regularly when if was free on Dr. Dobbs, but then they started charging for it.

I have just ordered her book from Barnes & Noble. I heartily recommend it based on her columns.

Hi Verity! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12318251)

How's it going?

Why did you choose the ./ username Merdalors?

Are you a Francophile?

Re:Verity Stob (1)

vsprintf (579676) | more than 8 years ago | (#12318507)

Verity Stob writes the funniest, wittiest stuff on programming I have ever seen. She obvioulsy knows what she's talking about.

Agreed. Her pseudo-biblical tales about the descendants of Borland and the Microsofties was some of the funniest (computer-related) stuff I've ever read.

yuo Failg It (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316270)

I thought it was my has bben my only

Futurama is NOT geek humour (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316314)

I don't think Futurama qualifies as it is quite often funny.

Re:Futurama is NOT geek humour (2, Insightful)

brilinux (255400) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316585)

I think that Futurama is a hell of a lot funnier if you are a geek than not. I cracked up when I saw "Bender's Computerized Dating Service: Discrete and Discreet", but everyone else thought nothing of it. There are several more examples like that; it is full of geek humour.

Re:Futurama is NOT geek humour (1)

Fiver- (169605) | more than 9 years ago | (#12317152)

While watching the Southpark episode with the evil Stan, Kyle & Cartman from an alternate dimension, I literally fell off the couch laughing at the fact that they all had goatees. It was fucking brilliant. None of my friends understood.

Re:Futurama is NOT geek humour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12317372)

Best moment... fist episode. Bender shits a brick.

Might be more funny situations, but that one moment, so classic. And it's even funny taken out of context.

Re:Futurama is NOT geek humour (2, Insightful)

Urchlay (518024) | more than 9 years ago | (#12317800)

I think that Futurama is a hell of a lot funnier if you are a geek than not.

You have to be an old geek to get some of the jokes, like the time Bender shines the X-ray flashlight as his head and you can see a giant chip in his brain labelled `6502'. That cracked me up.. but would be about meaningless to anyone under 25 (or maybe 30, these days).

I cracked up when I saw "Bender's Computerized Dating Service: Discrete and Discreet"

You weren't the only one.

Whoever says Futurama isn't geek humor isn't paying attention...

I also like the Star Trek parodies:

"Is there anything to eat on this planet?"

"Well, it's a class M planet, so it should at least have Roddenberrys."

Even if you hate Star Trek, you gotta admit it makes great parody material.

Devil's Advocate (1)

FacePlant (19134) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316353)

Now there's writing. Always amusing.
Sometimes thought-provoking.
Stan Kelly-Bootle is the man.
I don't personally care to Verity Stob.

Huh? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316354)

Slsahdot a source o geek humor? Well I guess not haha funny, but funny as in kicked in the balls funny.

ObSimpsons (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 9 years ago | (#12317409)

And the Oscar for Best Picture goes to... "Man Getting Hit By Football", starring George C. Scott.

Wait... (1, Funny)

merpal (873013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316385)

A female... programmer? Hahahaha!

Never thought I'd ever hear of one of those in my lifetime. :)

Re:Wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316435)

Ada Lovelace ring a bell?

Grace Hopper, maybe?

You Newb.

Re:Wait... (1)

Reignking (832642) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316485)

Trinity?

Re:Wait... (1)

markana (152984) | more than 9 years ago | (#12317226)

script kiddie. Oh sure, she could *use* nmap, but would she know the correct way to use setsockopt() to optimize a send buffer? Not likely...

Re:Wait... (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 9 years ago | (#12317428)

Uhm, my girlfriend is a programmer. Nyah-nyah.

You don't have a girlfriend. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12318305)

Be honest.

What I hate is this insane rush to slobber praise over any female who knows how to do anything more on a PC than create an Excel spreadsheet.

"A chick can code? WOW! She must be THE BEST CODER IN THE WORLD THEN! "

What a crock of shit.

Re:You don't have a girlfriend. (2, Insightful)

vsprintf (579676) | more than 8 years ago | (#12318796)

A chick can code? WOW! She must be THE BEST CODER IN THE WORLD THEN!

Aww, grow up, Junior. It's no secret that most coders are male, but the female coders I've worked with are every bit as good as their male counterparts, and in some cases better -- they have to be in order to be taken seriously by boneheads like you and not get burned out.

One that has really impressed me has a great knack for for identifying flaws during design and code reviews. She then defuses the inevitable heated defense from the male programmer with a calm, "Well, maybe you're right." A week later, the male programmer will suddenly discover a new approach that removes the flaw, and it's his idea. She never says, "I told you so," either. She does her best to get a solid final product without any grandstanding -- a real professional. If only the same could be said for the young males in the department.

Re:You don't have a girlfriend. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12318952)

YHBT HTH HAND!

Re:You don't have a girlfriend. (1)

vsprintf (579676) | more than 8 years ago | (#12319039)

Yes, of course, and HAND has a special meaning (and relationship) in your case. :)

Re:Wait... (3, Insightful)

Insipid Trunculance (526362) | more than 9 years ago | (#12317747)

You are an obvious troll but hey i will take the bait.

Before they invented High Level Languages , the testosterone filled chest thumpers designed just the algorithms. Most of the programming was done by, you know , girls. Because the men couldnt fathom Machine instructions.

And ummm,what price Admiral Grace Hooper and Lady Ada Lovelace?

Re:Wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12318245)

nor will you ever get a blowjob, but that's ok... more for me!

Re:Wait... (1)

merpal (873013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12320007)

Um, I'm a female... there are so few female programmers (and women in IT for that matter) that I had to poke fun at an obvious stereotype.

Nobody got it, but that's ok. :P

Under-served? (1)

Mr. Protocol (73424) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316482)

...Danny O'Brien from NTK says that before the days of Dilbert, Futurama, User Friendly and Slashdot, the market for geek humor was dangerously under-served.


But not unserved. There was all that stuff I was churning out...

Re:Under-served? (1)

airship (242862) | more than 9 years ago | (#12317293)

And I hope that at least one or two /. ers remember .info magazine. We were known to slap a joke or a jibe into the occasional article.

-Mark R. Brown, former editor, .info magazine

Re:Under-served? (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 9 years ago | (#12319290)

Dear Mr. Protocol;

It is unfortunate that most slashdotters don't remember SUNExpert Magazine, and those that do, probably never read it.

However, those articles were pretty funny, although sometimes it took forever to get to the punchline.

Keep on Truckin' Dude!

Verity Stob is really ... (1)

geeklawyer (85727) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316498)

The Dave Green [davegreen.co.uk] ,Internet celebrity, raconteur, Oxford graduate but wearing a skirt...

The youth of today ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316623)

If you don't understand Ms Stob's jokes, laugh anway and pretend that you do. Failure to do so will show your PFY status.

That VB dissection... (2, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 9 years ago | (#12316629)

...is an absolute classic. So much so that Doctor Dobbs continues to get complaints about it from VB lovers who find it online.

Here it is (2, Interesting)

turgid (580780) | more than 9 years ago | (#12318002)

Right here [ddj.com] . My favourite. An all-time classic.

Re:Here it is (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 9 years ago | (#12319739)

Thanks for a link. Got a chance to re-read my favorite Stobism:
The four magic constants of the apocalypse: Nothing, Null, Empty, and Error.

BOFH (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316662)

What about the bastard operator from hell? That was classic geek humour, and a good role model.

Verity Stob at Wikipedia (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12316961)

You can read more on Verity Stob [wikipedia.org] at Wikipedia.

Interestingly, the Slashdot parts [wikipedia.org] were deemed of no value.

./ed? (1)

Dr. GeneMachine (720233) | more than 9 years ago | (#12317050)

guys, is it just my connection or did you just slashdot Dr. Dobbs? Their server is *crawling* at the moment...

A wonderful Stob article (3, Informative)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 9 years ago | (#12317162)

Don't miss her interview with a bulk emailer [theregister.co.uk] , from The Register.

Side-splitting stuff. If the book's half as good, it's a must-read.

D

Re:A wonderful Stob article (1)

ProfitElijah (144514) | more than 9 years ago | (#12319458)

Ha! It's mostly better! I used to read my Dad's .EXE mags and pretty much the only bits I got were the STOB columns. Them were the days, with a 20MB hard disk and a 10 meg hard card, that rattled like a prop plane... it all came back when I got this book.

...sigh...

Buy it from OverStock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12317239)

For those of you thinking about buying the book, you'll save substantially if you buy from overstock.com [tinyurl.com] as opposed to B&N [tinyurl.com] . That's including tax (if applicable) and shipping. Even Amazon [tinyurl.com] is way cheaper than B&N. Somewhat offtopic, but use PriceGrabber [pricegrabber.com] for comparison shopping.

Re:Buy it from OverStock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12317540)

DAMN YOU TINY URL! I clicked on the Amacon link, cause Amazon usually has some interesting things in the review. For some reason I didn't notice that it linked to tinyurl rather than Amazon, but I did notice that the url was very short. So for some reason I assumed that it linked to the main page. I was almost ready to put on my tinfoil hat once I saw that Amazon was featuring this quite unknown book on the front page.

Not funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12318954)

I have to admit, "Verity"'s column is one of the things that got me to stop reading Dr. Dobbs for a while. I just didn't find it funny. Compared with the amazing Stan Kelly-Bootle [feniks.com] 's work, for example, she was nowhere with me.

I'm glad to see DDJ head back to its roots. I hope it travels farther in that direction

Change for changes sake (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 9 years ago | (#12319942)

> > I heard somewhere Microsoft gonna use Pthon for the default scripting

It their very own fault for the disputing with Sun. It better they use Java. Here we are using Java since three years ago. We not only using Java for the programmer increase (though we are: maybe ten times, maybe twenty times) we also now use it for everything from the commanding line stuff such as grep through to the web engine beans. Same speed C but faster. The security we are finding, and with the IDE too (Borland or IBM). Portability of course is of the deal.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?