Skip to main content

Melvyn Bragg Steps Down From BBC Radio 4's In Our Time After 26 Years

1 week 1 day ago
After 26 years and over 1,000 episodes, Melvyn Bragg is stepping down as presenter of BBC Radio 4's In Our Time, leaving behind a legacy of intellectual curiosity and broadcasting excellence. While he will no longer host the series, he will remain involved with the BBC and is set to launch a new project in 2026. The BBC reports: Over the last quarter of a century, Melvyn has skilfully led conversations about everything from the age of the Universe to 'Zenobia', Queen of the Palmyrene Empire. He has welcomed the company of the brightest and best academics in their fields, sharing their passion and knowledge with a fascinated audience right around the globe. While he will be much missed on In Our Time, Melvyn will continue to be a friend of Radio 4 with more to come to celebrate his extraordinary career, and a new series in 2026 (details to be announced soon). Melvyn Bragg says: "For a program with a wholly misleading title which started from scratch with a six-month contract, it's been quite a ride! I have worked with many extremely talented and helpful people inside the BBC as well as some of the greatest academics around the world. It's been a great privilege and pleasure. I much look forward to continuing to work for the BBC on Radio 4. Thank you for listening." [...] In Our Time will be back on Radio 4 with a new presenter who will be announced in due course.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

BeauHD

Coded Smorgasbord: Basically, a Smorgasbord

1 week 1 day ago

It's that time to take a look at a few short snippets.

Boolean values can hold true or false. But is that truly self documenting? I think we need clearer variable names for this. Certainly, the snippet Nonymous found thinks so:

boolean isTrue = false;

Well, at least I'll know if it's true or not. I'm not sure what "it" is in this scenario, but I'm sure that's the least important part of all of this.

If you've worked in C#, you're aware that it offers both a string type, and a String type- they're the same thing. So Colin's co-worker isn't wrong for writing code this way, but they're also wrong for writing code this way.

writer.WriteLine(string.Empty); writer.WriteLine(String.Empty);

Billie sends us this short bit of Java, which ensures that nulls are properly handled:

if (val == null) { return null; } return val;

It's very important that, if val is null, we don't just return the contents of val, we should return null instead. Y'know, so no one is surprised by an unexpected null. Wait a second…

Finally, Jon finds this comment in the codebase. The code is elided, but I Jon has helpfully summarized it.

// Basically, … several thousand lines of dense code containing no further comments

Honestly, I'm not sure if that comment is a statement of surrender or just an ironic joke. Either way, I get it.

.comment { border: none; } [Advertisement] Plan Your .NET 9 Migration with Confidence
Your journey to .NET 9 is more than just one decision.Avoid migration migraines with the advice in this free guide. Download Free Guide Now!
Remy Porter