Because alot of early and popular "ajax" sites were made by idiots doing clearly incorrect things. Firefox impliments alot of IE jscript brokenness that opera does not. Hell, even slashdot did this with their new gajax commenting system. And they said "opera is broken so its not supported", even though it was just their javascript being broken.
"Look, I'm the biggest pro-ponent of a government-managed healthcare system. But the people who come up with these things deserve a little for their effort."
They are already paid very well. Big companies ass raping consumers after that isn't going to magically give the researchers more compensation.
"What's with every man Jack assuming he deserves the absolute best medicines and procedures for the lowest price?"
The fact that they paid for the research?
""I wanted the Mercedes of healthcare, but I could only afford Kia!""
No, try "I paid for you to do this research, you damn well better provide it at cost". Independant research finds viagara. This research is being done in a Canadian hospital, paid for with Canadian tax dollars.
Since when did HP have a sacred right to sell PCs? Corporations are required to follow laws, they have no "sacred right" to ignore laws and do as they please.
"It has a simple way to do console and file IO (scanf, printf) that will enable students to write and test simple programs."
So do all the other languages people have recommended instead.
"It is used everywhere"
That doesn't mean its a good first language.
"It is completely deterministic when run in one thread."
Not really. You can write deterministic code in C, but its not like using C just magically makes your program deterministic. And any other language is going to offer the same thing.
"Its syntax is very simple. There are very few gotchas, most of which can be resolved with extra parenthesis."
Actually, there's quite a bit of syntax to learn compared to some other suggested languages like lisp/scheme or python.
"The learning curve for Lisp/Python/Java/Ruby/etc. will be at least as steep as that for C for new programmers, and additionally there is little point in teaching OOP to people unfamiliar with structured programming and the problems OOP is meant to address."
You can teach people to use lisp or python MUCH quicker than C. Especially if you use a lisp implimentation designed for teaching, like logo. You can teach it to 10 year olds easily. And there's no need to actually teach them OO design/programming just because you are using python.
"Second, it is frustrating to learn a language that has little use elsewhere, especially when it is because someone else claimed that it was better to know general concepts than to know a useful language."
I think perhaps you are out of touch with the world high school kids live in. Most would find C frustrating because it has little use for them. Most high school kids aren't interested in writing OS kernels, or device drivers, or system utilities/libraries. Most of them would find python more useful, especially if you show them some of the python web frameworks, pygame, etc. They can do things that interest them (and that do alot more) much easier and quicker with a high level language than with C. This gets them interested in programming, instead of boring them like C probably would.
"The OS vendor is so inept that they can't keep hostile code from changing kernel data space"
This has nothing to do with the kernel at all.
"This will make many kernel bugs nonrepeatable, and improve Microsoft's defect deniability"
No, it will make exploiting the bugs require you to correctly guess where the library is loaded in memory. The bugs don't change.
"Meanwhile, hostile code can just take over the interrupt locations, which can't move. Attacks will have to do more of the operating systems's work, like that attack which installs a virtual machine under the operating system. There are other approaches, such as simply taking over the whole machine and running something else, like a mini-OS equipped with a spam engine."
This is to prevent successful exploitation of bugs in software. It has nothing to do with preventing rootkits or other nastiness from being installed after your machine is already compromised.
"Note the effect. This doesn't make attacks harder. It makes attacks which leave Windows running harder."
Yes it does make (certain) attacks harder. You have to guess the address correctly. Typically, if you guess wrong it will crash the software instead of exploiting it.
"Earth to Microsoft: if an attack can get into kernel mode, it's succeeded."
Earth to Animats: if you have no idea what you are talking about, don't pretend you do.
"Heck, if I found out my Linux box had been owned, my reaction would probably be to wipe the hard disk, reinstall Ubuntu, and restore all my user files from backup. I don't have the expertise that would be needed to do forensics on the machine once it's been compromised."
The whole point of this is to help prevent the compromise in the first place. Nobody is perfect, and there is no way to make sure that all software is 100% bug free. So using techniques to help prevent exploitation of bugs when they are found is a good thing.
OpenBSD and linux both support this as well. Just because microsoft does something, doesn't mean its a bad thing.
"I mean those people who rant against OO programing and ORMs."
No, I simply pointed out that there is nothing modern about it. I personally don't use ORMs because if I wanted to work in an OO style I would use an object database instead of a relational database. Just because I have common sense doesn't mean I "rant against" OO programming (which I use all the time) or ORMs (which have their place). Do you really want attention so badly that you make up random nonsense to try and keep arguments going just so you have someone to talk to?
"I will use postgres if and when it has the features it I need and want."
Like I said, if you wanted to use postgresql you would. You are inventing the most trivial problem, which has several trival solutions. Clearly you don't want to use postgres, so don't.
"No I am trying to explain to the dickwad fanbois why people don't use postgres and choose mysql instead. Mysql has more features then postgres, features people want. Postgres has lots of features nobody really cares about like *~"
You are a megalomaniac. The universe does not revolve around you. Just because you invent excuses not to use postgres, that doesn't mean all the people choosing mysql are doing it for your invented reason. And just because someone disagrees with your opinion, doesn't make them dickwads or "fanbois". You can bitch about this for as long as you want, on as many websites as you want, and get laughed at by as many people as you want, but that will never make your bizzare self absorbed fantasy become reality. Most mysql users don't even know that postgresql doesn't have this, I doubt its affected the choice for even.1% of mysql users.
"Explain why all the open source databases support this feature too then?"
The ones with vendors and customers? How does being open source have any relevance?
"Yes there is. It's called collations. It's a standard. Look into it sometime. In fact the SQL standard says you should be able to set collations on a per column basis which MSSQL and firebird support but postgres does not."
Implimenting collations correctly is more involved than you are pretending. It will need to be flexible enough to support other datatypes besides text based ones. Again, all 2 people that care about this are free to use MSSQL. You are under the impression that because you are one of those 2 people, that there is a huge massive majority of people actively avoiding postgresql because of this. Its simply not the case. Easily THOUSANDS of times more people avoid postgresql because its not a PHB approved corporate supported database. Nobody cares about that "problem" either.
"Really? So when I am using activerecord and I call Person.find_by_last_name('mcnab') it puts UPPER in there for me?"
I sure as hell hope not. I know this is going to shock you, but even activerecord is flexible enough to let you define whatever searches you want, and sane enough not to produce incorrect results by default. If you will only ever search last name in a case insensitive manner, then define find_by_last_name to use upper() or lower(). One of the features people like in an ORM is the ability to let you make customizations like this in a single place instead of all over the place. You still have to tell it what to do, its not magic.
"Aaaah you are one of those people are you."
"those people"? You mean "those people" who use the right tools and techniques for the task? Yep. You mean "those people" who aren't stupid enough to think "littering your code with SQL" and using an ORM are the only possibilities? Yep. Do you normally make stuff up and then fall back on "those people" bullshit when called on it? Or did you mean to say "PHB approved industry standard practices" and "modern" was a typo? Or do you seriously think decade and a half old techniques are modern? Welcome to the 1990s, enjoy your stay.
"You know this conversation reminds of so many I had with postgres users. I remember when postgres didn't support alter table and dickwads like you were saying "there is no need for alter table just use this workaround". I remember when posgtres didn't support outer joins (I do believe it was the last database in the world to support outer joins) and dickwads like you were saying "there is no need for outer joins just your this query instead"."
No, dickwads like me were not using postgresql because it was a pain in the ass, exactly because of the lack of alter table and a few other annoying things that needed to be "worked around". Just because I don't think your fabricated problem is a real problem doesn't mean I think alter table is useless.
"Last to implement alter table, last to implement outer joins, last to implement replication, last to implement clustering, last to implement failover, last to implement case insensitive collations. Due in large part to dickwads like you."
No, due exclusively to the nature of open source projects. The developers impliment what the developers want. If you share their needs, lucky you, you can use their project. If you don't, then don't use it. Pretty simple huh? Rather amusing that you rag on postgresql for being "last to support" stuff though. If you wanted to use postgresql for real, this would not be an issue. You would either use upper() or lower() like you should, or you would install a case-insensitive data type. You just want to whine about postgresql. Feel free to do so, but its not going to suddenly make you important, and its not going to suddenly make postgresql developers do your bidding.
If the companies tell all linux users to pound sand, then there will be a nice market there. Some of those companies (if past history is anything to go by, it will be all the asian ones) will just go ahead and give us docs. Then we will have high quality, stable, secure drivers. Then linux users will actually HELP get docs from the other companies since they don't have the option of using binary shit, and more companies will wake up and start treating their paying customers like customers instead of like hostages.
Vendor A impliments "feature" designed to lock in customers. Vendor B is forced to impliment it too. Postgresql isn't a company, there is no vendor, so they aren't under the presure to screw up their software.
"No postgres implements a workaround which is not an SQL standard and is not supported by any ORM."
Right, just not the workaround you like. If you want to be portable and SQL standard, then YOU MUST USE upper() or lower(). There is no other option. Just because you are relying on a vendor extension doesn't mean postgresql should impliment it for you. And I don't believe that any ORM sucks that hard, they ALL let you define your searches. If you want to search case insensitive, then do so.
"Because littering your code with SQL is a bad programming practice. Modern programming methods use an object relational layer. You may want to read about them sometime. Oh I will answer the question for you, ilike does not use indexes."
You don't need to litter your code with SQL. You already have to build a where clause. Any ORM will let you put upper() in there, or any other SQL. You can even configure them (hibernate at least) to specify what function upper() is if you really need to. And "modern programming methods" and ORM are miles apart. OO programming is very old, as is the bizzare fetish of trying to mash anything and everything into an OO layer for no reason.
"Except that I did no such thing, "where lastname = 'McNab'" is standard. "Where lastname *~ 'McNab'" is not. See the difference?"
You are ignoring your "be case insensitive" setting. "where lastname = 'McNab'" is standard. And as per the standard, will only return rows where lastname = 'McNab', not 'mcnab'. If you want case insensitivity, then use the also standard: "where lower(lastname) = 'mcnab'". Duh.
Setting the database to return the wrong information to a standard query means its no longer standard. This should be pretty easy to understand.
"So sorry, the developers of postgres don't really care about that."
No need to be sorry, lots of people don't care about that, at all, no really involved.
"But every vendor of databases supports case insensitive queries. Except postgres of course."
Postgres does impliment it, just not the way you want it to.
"Does ilike use indexes?"
Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you. If not then use the portable upper() or lower() like you should have been doing all along.
"Then why do all of them give you the option of case insensitive collations?"
Users of other databases give you that option?
"Over the last five years I am the only one asking for this feature? Google says that? Really?"
No, google doesn't say that. And neither did I.
"Here is a hint for you. I need feature X. Every database in the world has feature X except postgres. I guess I won't use postgres."
Good for you.
"This topic was about why people use mysql when postgres is so much better. There is a reason for you. Postgres does not support feature X."
And as I said, you don't matter. I am sure this is a problem for you. I am sure your refusal to do things correctly is for a good reason. That doesn't mean its a problem for everyone else, or even a significant number of people. "I can't switch to postgres easily because I relied on non-standard vendor specific features" isn't very compelling. You already chose your database before you made the mess, so clearly the mess is not the reason you didn't choose postgres, its just a reason you haven't migrated to it. A good reason not to migrate I might add. And not a good reason to put bad "features" that shouldn't be there into postgres. Its not GNU software, they won't just add any and every feature anyone ever requests.
"Really. First of all I would hardly call slony trivial. It's a bitch to set up. Secondly it does not support multi master replication. Finally it's not asyncronous and should not be used WANs."
Hmm, I must just be so super awesome then since slony doesn't seem to be so hard to me. Replication is master->slave. That is the definition. Master-master is clustering, which is what pgcluster is for (shocking I know). And if you want async replication then use async replication (rserv). Why do you think a sync replication package not supporting async replication is a problem?
"Pgcluster does not work over a WAN. Pgcluster is not a part of postgres it's a separate product."
Oh of course, you are doing multi master clustering over a WAN using mysql. Just because mysql isn't up front about the limitations of the replication and clustering options, doesn't mean those limitations aren't there.
"Ilike is not an SQL standard. If you have hundreds of queries already written then you have to rewrite every single one of them to use ilike. Ilike is slower then where x='y'. I don't know of any ORM on the market that uses ilike this means you can not use hibernate, activerecord, etc."
Yeah, having to change your queries never happens with migrating between other DBs. Come on, at least try to make sense. If you cared about portability, you would be using upper() or lower() in the first place. Expecting postgresql to support the vendor specific hack you like instead of the vendor specific hack they already have is just dumb. I'm lucky enough not to have to touch java, but the folks at work had no problem with getting hibernate to co-operate for this. Activerecord may well be a problem given that it is a mysql mapping, not an SQL mapping, talk to DHH about his damage not postgresql devs. And why do you think ilike is slower than x='y' in a case insensitive DB? Here's a hint, that case insensitivity isn't put there by magic fairies, that's actually code that has to execute to do that for you. Hiding the upper() from you doesn't make it faster.
"Yes thousands use it. Alas millions use oracle, mysql, mssql, and db/2. As you may have noticed postgres is not the most popular database. There is a reason for that."
Its unlikely that millions of people actually care about what you are talking about. Thousands of postgresql users think you are wrong. It doesn't seem that many other DB users think you are right. In fact, google seems to support the idea that its mostly just you posting this same shit all over the web because you like to whine about not getting your way. I don't care that postgresql is not the most popular. It never will be and that's great. I can't think of any software I use that is the most popular other than apache, and I don't use it because of its popularity. Popular != good.
"either they're not being paid very much or the oil companies will soon be bankrupt"
I will give you this, at least you are much funnier than the average troll. Those poor oil companies, I can't imagine how they can afford to pay anyone for anything. I mean seriously, how could the most profitable corporation in the world afford to pay people to do marketing for them, it just doesn't make any sense.
"will lie in order to persuade someone"
I am not trying to persuade you. I assumed you were the typical head in the sand dumbass, in which case nothing would persuade you. If you wanted to know the truth you would already have found it. But now that you've started reeling in, its obvious you are just trolling, still nobody to persuade about anything.
"Now please show me where Richard Lindzen, either of the Roger Pielkes, Roy Spencer, Fred Singer or any of the dozens of other AGW skeptics has ever weighed in on the subject of smoking."
Oh man, you are killing me! You didn't seriously just put Fred Singer in that list did you? The guy who was a senior fellow with AdTI, the known shills who will make any study to show anything you want if you pay them? The one who was the chief reviewer of their report "Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination", which called the mountains of evidence linking smoking to lung cancer "junk science" and attacked anyone and everyone involved in trying to pass laws regulating tobacco? The man who is a researcher with the "independant institute" that is funded by philip morris and exxon? Damn dude, try not to make the trolling so obvious. You would have done better to just make up people instead.
"Yes but it doesn't have what people REALLY want. Replication, clustering, failover, case insensitive where clauses."
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. I realize you are just trolling, but I will still point out the facts so that you don't breed new mysqltards.
There are a few replication options, that's trivial. Clustering and failover are provided by pgcluster. Case insensitive where clauses are provided by ilike, as you already know.
"There is a reason why people choose MySql and that's because it delivers the features people really want first. Even the features are not 100% "correct" they are delivered "good enough" to get "real work" done."
Most people I know who use mysql do so because they are using some shitty software that requires it, because they didn't know there were other free DBs, or because they are doing some high performance task where data safety doesn't matter, so they are using the fast myisam tables.
"Take case insesntive where clauses for example. For the last five years or so that I have been following the pg mailing lists there must have been hundreds of requests from people who want to switch over from mysql, ms-sql, oracle, informix, firebird etc for a case insensitive collation option. They just get ignored and told to change all their queries to use ILIKE or *~ or some other stupid non standard postgres only SQL. Oddly enough their primary excuse for not providing it is that it's not a SQL standard."
No, only from idiots who think "a" and "A" are the same thing. If you want to do a case insensitive comparison, use ilike or use upper() or lower() (depending on the circumstances).
"So if you using any kind of an ORM and you can not stomach asking your employees or web users to remember the exact capitalization of everything they have ever typed into your database then postgres is not an option."
Really? That's why thousands of people use it and have no problem at all with case insensitivity right? Being case sensitive is normal behaviour. If you want to check an email then do lower(email), this is basic stuff people learn in their first ever foray into SQL.
Natural selection is not some fundamental law of physics. Its our name for something we observed in nature. The weak, sick, unfit specimens are killed by other animals, for reasons such as food. It has nothing to do with the indiscriminate killing of all specimens of an entire species under any circumstances, especially not through the destruction of their habitat. Natural selection applies to individuals, not to species.
And natural is specifically defined as not including those things which exist only due to humans. We make the word, we make its definition, and we define it as "that thing we escaped from". We are not part of nature, we have removed ourselves from nature.
Yes they do. The US media simply reports the 1% and 99% as being 50/50.
"Guess what? The only concurring opinions are ALSO those of paid shills. People don't do scientific research for free. SOMEONE PAYS THEM, all of them."
Being paid does not make one a paid shill. The 1% of people who deny the scientific facts are all paid by oil companies or others who benefit from keeping the fabricated "controversy" going as long as possible (and no, being paid by the oil company's PR firm doesn't make them not a paid shill). Just like tobacco, the more you make it seem like there is a controversy, the longer you can delay laws being passed that would hurt your business.
"if there's a consensus, it's not scientific. If it's scientific, it doesn't involve consensus."
Wow, you are really reaching. I guess since there's scientific consensus on gravity, that must not be scientific either right? I suppose the 3 insane people who think gravity is wrong means there is a "controversy" about gravity and thus its not real.
"This kind of ad-hominem attack..."
You spelled fact wrong.
"...the whole global warming controversy. "
There is no global warming controversy. The US media portrays the paid shills lies and deception as being equally valid, plausible and supported in an attempt to appease the republicans who whine about the "liberal media". Hence morons like you hear as much of the 1% paid shills story as you do the 99%, and think there's a controversy. Bury your head in the sand all you want, it won't change the facts.
Some of the people involved in fabricating this controversy have even admitted their parts. Like writing up a nice little "how to use words that confuse the issue" doc for politicians and shills to use. "Climate change" sounds more natural and less significant than "global warming". There's documented evidence of the republican party EDITING SCIENTIFIC REPORTS to REMOVE FACTS. Almost all of the prominent anti global warming shills are being paid by exxon after filtering the money through fake "citizen's groups", trusts and PR firms. They are the same "scientists" who were so prominently skeptical about the "inconclusive" science behind smoking being harmful. The fact that they were being paid to lie about smoking was just a co-incidence right? The fact that they don't have any background in smoking or climate related fields doesn't matter right?
That's ok, I still type mysql every time I mean to type myself (just did it again) and have to backspace and fix it. I haven't even used mysql in years.
Back then it was a very small minority of scientists making that claim, with very little scientific evidence. The media blew it out of proportion. The current situation is more like smoking being dangerous. Every scientistic agrees, there is tons of evidence, and the only dissenting opinions are those of paid shills.
"Actually, I think it's more akin to why Linux is very popular for some tasks among geeks and professional sysadmins, yet rarely seen on home user desktops. It's the difference between the adoption of a mass-market, good-enough tool promoted by a wave of corporate advertising, and a tool that an informed group of users choose after serious consideration."
Interesting choice of metaphor, given that C++ has a windows-like position in the "market", and that its popularity is almost entirely based on early misleading marketing and OO hype, combined with the PHB mentality. Everyone I know who knows C++ learned it because "its what everyone uses", or because they had to for school or some project. C++ is where the jobs are, because the PHBs who know nothing about programming say so.
Incidently, I don't think linux is very often an informed choice. Most places I find are using linux "cause windows sucks". Very rarely have these people even considered other options, they frequently don't even know they exist. Why is linux more popular than any BSD? It has nothing to do with quality does it?
"I said no such thing. I have made no comment on what jobs D can't do at any point in this thread. I have simply argued that for the kind of work I do, D does not offer sufficiently compelling advantages for me to justify choosing it over C++."
Actually, your first reply was to inform me that in your very important work you need "fine programmer control" that C++ offers. The obvious implication being that you either think C++ is the only language that gives you this fine control, or you think C++ and java are the only languages that exist. You only fell back on "D isn't a big enough improvement to make the effort of switching worth it" after I pointed out that D gives you all the flexibility of C++ without the crap. But that is missing the point. Like I said, I'm not telling you to switch languages. I am saying C++ is a bad language. That doesn't mean nobody should ever use it, and it doesn't mean you should switch for existing projects. I just don't think you should dismiss the problems C++ has and pretend programmers should just never make mistakes. Its not realistic, and attitudes like that are what creates an expectation of mediocrity.
We can make newer, better tools using what we learned from older tools. You seem to think linux is good, but have you really considered what is so good about it? Its a poor reimplimentation of an obsolete operating system. The geniuses who made unix don't use unix anymore. Why are so many people now hung up on using a unix wannabe that totally missed the point? Just because something is popular, or the status quo, doesn't mean its good. Again, I am not saying nobody should ever use C++ or linux, just that practical considerations making them the right choice in certain situations doesn't negate the fact that they are nasty, ugly hacks that we should be striving to relegate to the dustbin of computing history where they belong.
"Hence the only people who really appreciate things like the power of the RIAA"
I think its mostly record execs who appreciate the power of the RIAA;) (sorry, I had to)
"But if it were really as bad as you make out, then it wouldn't be one of the most successful programming languages ever, and if D were so much better then surely a lot more smart programmers would have switched over by now?"
Of course that must be true. The best things are always the most popular right? That's why windows is so popular, because its so awesome. That's why VHS killed betamax right? I guess VB used to be a pretty good language, till it mysteriously got worse right around the time MS told the VB coders to use.net. Certainly quality is the only factor determining the success of a product.
"You, on the other hand, seem to think it's up to me to argue that D is not superior to C++, despite the fact that you keep claiming good things about it without actually giving any concrete examples of where it's good while C++ is a "pile of crap"."
You said that you had to use C++ because D would not do the job. I told you to give specifics. You don't seem able to provide any such specifics (shocking indeed!). C++ is a pile of crap because of all those annoying gotchas that you already admitted fill a book. I cannot think of another language with as many warts with the possible exception of perl. I am not saying Bjarne is a dumb guy. Neither is Larry Wall. But they both made a lot of very reasonable and well thought out choices in creating their languages, but didn't consider the language as a whole. They let it "evolve" too much and didn't "design" it enough. Hence C++ and perl being such hideous monsters.
"Perhaps this is why I like C++ as a practical tool for real programming jobs, but saw few real improvements over it in the design of D."
Or perhaps, since you have admittedly already invested the time learning about much of C++'s sharp toothed and hungry areas, and you are used to dealing with that crap, you don't notice what a pain C++ is? After driving your gremlin every day for 10 years, you don't realize how awful it is till you get to drive a good car, then have to go back to your gremlin. You are dismissing D because you looked at a list of features, saw that D is not designed for the 1970s, and dismissed it. A list of choices about the language doesn't really tell you how well the language works in practice. Otherwise C++ wouldn't be so bad. Just because D offers a modern language, doesn't mean its not practical. But I suppose rational thought hasn't really been part of the process of considering D for you has it? Or perhaps you might have some actual reasons why its not able to do your super awesome math that only C++ can do.
None of this changes the fact that you pretended that C++ having a book full of traps is ok, because "experienced programmers" will have memorized them all and will always remember them. The language should not hinder you. It should not be a source of mistakes and bugs. It should not require constant attention to tricky bullshit instead of letting you concentrate on solving the problem. Why do you think languages that try to bite your ass is acceptable? Demand better instead of settling for whatever you get, you'll end up learning alot in the process of finding better tools.
"What qualifies Walter Bright and co as "actually having experience having to write code"? Do you think Bjarne Stroustrup never wrote any real code?! He wrote a whole book on how he reached his decisions about how C++ would work, and it's an enlightening study of how to make a highly successful programming language."
A very enlightening book indeed. Its a great book to read, and a very good example of how you can make reasonable decisions, and end up with a horrible pile of crap. Read through it and see if you can point out any individual mistake that makes C++ bad. You can't, he explains his reasoning and its always quite sane. But the end result of making tons of individual little decisions without regard for the whole is a mess.
What qualifies Walter is having written compilers for 20+ years. Frankly, having actually written C++ compilers, including the first native C++ compiler, he has more practical experience with C++ than Bjarne does. Notice all the amazingly brilliant people who were at bell labs. Notice that nobody there would use C++, even though it was designed by a fellow bell labs genious. I don't think this is a co-incidence.
"So, what advantages does D really offer over C++, ignoring that hopelessly misleading feature comparison chart on the Digital Mars web site? Why should I, as a professional programmer with a tool that works well for the job I'm doing, invest the time and effort to learn a new language and port about 50 man-years of code to a relatively untried language with no standard, little formal support and minor commercial backing, and few users? What compelling advantage does your/Bright's proposed alternative offer me?"
Why do you refuse to listen? I didn't say you should port your existing C++ to D. I said C++ is a bad language. This is clearly a pointless discussion, as you can only seem to relate "C++ is bad" to "he wants to me stop using C++". A gremlin is a bad car. That doesn't mean you need to sell yours, or buy a new car. It just means its a bad car. You can own a bad car, drive a bad car, and still realize that its a bad car. C++ is a gremlin.
I am not getting at anything with ocaml, apparently simply using any example leads to your inability to focus on the topic. Ignore ocaml, ignore C, ignore everything else. This is very simple, when you have a language like C++ with hundreds of ugly mistakes that can bite you (you even admitted it has and needs books on how to avoid these gotchas), then programmers are stuck trying to remember and deal with these problems instead of concentrating on programming. Claiming that "experienced programmers" won't make this mistakes is bullshit, and any experienced C++ programmmer knows it (wether you admit it or not is another issue entirely). Languages should not pose problems. They should not be something you need to be aware of keeping happy. They should allow you to express the solution to the problem with as little interference as possible.
I only mentioned other languages because you seem to be under the impression that C++ is the only language that can do the job you want. I pointed out that D is very comparable and does what C++ does without the constant "oh yeah, careful about hidden problem X" that C++ is full of. The original post if you care to read it again was that programmers should not have to work around and be careful of the language. Your tool shouldn't be cutting you, use a sharper knife.
Why are C++ fans incapable of reading? Please stop with the same nonsense that has nothing to do with what I am saying.
"I know that the engineers I work with would give you REALLY strange looks if you wanted them to learn OCaml."
I bet you they would. I didn't say they should learn ocaml. I said C++ is a bad language. Not quite the same is it? This has nothing to do with functional programming, or safe languages, or anything else. C++ is very poorly designed. It is trade off on top of hack on top of mistake on top of ugly. You can certainly avoid much of the problems with C++ if you treat it as C with classes, but avoiding most of a language because its so awful isn't exactly a glowing recommendation is it? If you are looking for a large pool of easily replacable programmers, C++ is a good choice. This doesn't make it a good language, or helpful to programmers.
"4. Have you worked on codes that run so long that achieving even a 3% speedup is seen as a great step forward? I'd be more than willing to bet my Intel compiler will run circles around your D compiler. Yes, circles."
I'm willing to bet you haven't tried it. If you are on a platform where you can use the intel compiler, then you are on a platform where you can use the digitalmars D compiler instead of the gnu one (which isn't quite as fast). Walter is a very bright man (no pun intended), and has DECADES of practical experience implimenting compilers. He wrote the first native C++ compiler. His C++ and D compilers are very good. Why are the only people who insist that C++ is awesome people who refuse to try anything else and dismiss everything else in ignorance? And of course, if you really would get such a benefit from 3% performance, you would be taking the time to add in little bits of hand tuned assembly. It doesn't matter how unportable it is, you can rewrite it once every 5 years when you switch platforms. But then, you are probably already doing that. Funny how people see C++ and bits of ASM as normal, but D with bits of ASM is just plain crazy!
"OO techniques can come in very handy... Sure you can do it in C but you can really start kicking ass with a well defined subset of C++"
Hence people doing smart things like generating the otherwise tedious and error prone redundant C code from ocaml. You maintain the ocaml code, which generates the very fast, but not maintainable C code, which doesn't need to be maintained. Or the more common, using a good language for the project, and writing the performance critical 10% in C.
"5. Did C++ touch you in a bad place when you were a young programmer? Why are you arguing this with such vitriol? Can you not accept that some people _like_ C++ and all the rope that it has to offer? Personally, I have yet to get bit in the ass by C++. From the passion you apply to your arguments I must be a freakin' genius."
Did C++ touch you in a good place? Why are you seeing this magical vitriol? Do you associate the use of words such as "shit" with vitriol? This is how I talk, sorry if you don't like it. I am not saying you shouldn't use C++, or that anon brave guy shouldn't either. I am saying that his dismissal of C++'s problems is stupid. C++ is full of problems that make programmers lives more difficult, and better languages don't have these problems. Very simple. Avoiding most of C++ will certainly avoid most of C++'s problems, but claiming those problems are ok because "good programmers" will have all the hundreds of gotchas memorized and will never make a mistake is just moronic. Sure, there are times when C++ is the right choice, like when you are stuck with existing C++ code. But you shouldn't pretend its a good language just because you haven't bothered to try anything else.
Of course, anyone who has used C++ more than a little has been touched in a bad place by it. Some people just get attached to their abuser because he says he loves them;)
Slashdot Mirror
Because alot of early and popular "ajax" sites were made by idiots doing clearly incorrect things. Firefox impliments alot of IE jscript brokenness that opera does not. Hell, even slashdot did this with their new gajax commenting system. And they said "opera is broken so its not supported", even though it was just their javascript being broken.
"Look, I'm the biggest pro-ponent of a government-managed healthcare system. But the people who come up with these things deserve a little for their effort."
They are already paid very well. Big companies ass raping consumers after that isn't going to magically give the researchers more compensation.
"What's with every man Jack assuming he deserves the absolute best medicines and procedures for the lowest price?"
The fact that they paid for the research?
""I wanted the Mercedes of healthcare, but I could only afford Kia!""
No, try "I paid for you to do this research, you damn well better provide it at cost". Independant research finds viagara. This research is being done in a Canadian hospital, paid for with Canadian tax dollars.
Since when did HP have a sacred right to sell PCs? Corporations are required to follow laws, they have no "sacred right" to ignore laws and do as they please.
"It has a simple way to do console and file IO (scanf, printf) that will enable students to write and test simple programs."
So do all the other languages people have recommended instead.
"It is used everywhere"
That doesn't mean its a good first language.
"It is completely deterministic when run in one thread."
Not really. You can write deterministic code in C, but its not like using C just magically makes your program deterministic. And any other language is going to offer the same thing.
"Its syntax is very simple. There are very few gotchas, most of which can be resolved with extra parenthesis."
Actually, there's quite a bit of syntax to learn compared to some other suggested languages like lisp/scheme or python.
"The learning curve for Lisp/Python/Java/Ruby/etc. will be at least as steep as that for C for new programmers, and additionally there is little point in teaching OOP to people unfamiliar with structured programming and the problems OOP is meant to address."
You can teach people to use lisp or python MUCH quicker than C. Especially if you use a lisp implimentation designed for teaching, like logo. You can teach it to 10 year olds easily. And there's no need to actually teach them OO design/programming just because you are using python.
"Second, it is frustrating to learn a language that has little use elsewhere, especially when it is because someone else claimed that it was better to know general concepts than to know a useful language."
I think perhaps you are out of touch with the world high school kids live in. Most would find C frustrating because it has little use for them. Most high school kids aren't interested in writing OS kernels, or device drivers, or system utilities/libraries. Most of them would find python more useful, especially if you show them some of the python web frameworks, pygame, etc. They can do things that interest them (and that do alot more) much easier and quicker with a high level language than with C. This gets them interested in programming, instead of boring them like C probably would.
"The OS vendor is so inept that they can't keep hostile code from changing kernel data space"
This has nothing to do with the kernel at all.
"This will make many kernel bugs nonrepeatable, and improve Microsoft's defect deniability"
No, it will make exploiting the bugs require you to correctly guess where the library is loaded in memory. The bugs don't change.
"Meanwhile, hostile code can just take over the interrupt locations, which can't move. Attacks will have to do more of the operating systems's work, like that attack which installs a virtual machine under the operating system. There are other approaches, such as simply taking over the whole machine and running something else, like a mini-OS equipped with a spam engine."
This is to prevent successful exploitation of bugs in software. It has nothing to do with preventing rootkits or other nastiness from being installed after your machine is already compromised.
"Note the effect. This doesn't make attacks harder. It makes attacks which leave Windows running harder."
Yes it does make (certain) attacks harder. You have to guess the address correctly. Typically, if you guess wrong it will crash the software instead of exploiting it.
"Earth to Microsoft: if an attack can get into kernel mode, it's succeeded."
Earth to Animats: if you have no idea what you are talking about, don't pretend you do.
"Heck, if I found out my Linux box had been owned, my reaction would probably be to wipe the hard disk, reinstall Ubuntu, and restore all my user files from backup. I don't have the expertise that would be needed to do forensics on the machine once it's been compromised."
The whole point of this is to help prevent the compromise in the first place. Nobody is perfect, and there is no way to make sure that all software is 100% bug free. So using techniques to help prevent exploitation of bugs when they are found is a good thing.
OpenBSD and linux both support this as well. Just because microsoft does something, doesn't mean its a bad thing.
Some people just think "I already paid for this game, I am not going to pay for it again".
"I mean those people who rant against OO programing and ORMs."
.1% of mysql users.
No, I simply pointed out that there is nothing modern about it. I personally don't use ORMs because if I wanted to work in an OO style I would use an object database instead of a relational database. Just because I have common sense doesn't mean I "rant against" OO programming (which I use all the time) or ORMs (which have their place). Do you really want attention so badly that you make up random nonsense to try and keep arguments going just so you have someone to talk to?
"I will use postgres if and when it has the features it I need and want."
Like I said, if you wanted to use postgresql you would. You are inventing the most trivial problem, which has several trival solutions. Clearly you don't want to use postgres, so don't.
"No I am trying to explain to the dickwad fanbois why people don't use postgres and choose mysql instead. Mysql has more features then postgres, features people want. Postgres has lots of features nobody really cares about like *~"
You are a megalomaniac. The universe does not revolve around you. Just because you invent excuses not to use postgres, that doesn't mean all the people choosing mysql are doing it for your invented reason. And just because someone disagrees with your opinion, doesn't make them dickwads or "fanbois". You can bitch about this for as long as you want, on as many websites as you want, and get laughed at by as many people as you want, but that will never make your bizzare self absorbed fantasy become reality. Most mysql users don't even know that postgresql doesn't have this, I doubt its affected the choice for even
"Explain why all the open source databases support this feature too then?"
The ones with vendors and customers? How does being open source have any relevance?
"Yes there is. It's called collations. It's a standard. Look into it sometime. In fact the SQL standard says you should be able to set collations on a per column basis which MSSQL and firebird support but postgres does not."
Implimenting collations correctly is more involved than you are pretending. It will need to be flexible enough to support other datatypes besides text based ones. Again, all 2 people that care about this are free to use MSSQL. You are under the impression that because you are one of those 2 people, that there is a huge massive majority of people actively avoiding postgresql because of this. Its simply not the case. Easily THOUSANDS of times more people avoid postgresql because its not a PHB approved corporate supported database. Nobody cares about that "problem" either.
"Really? So when I am using activerecord and I call Person.find_by_last_name('mcnab') it puts UPPER in there for me?"
I sure as hell hope not. I know this is going to shock you, but even activerecord is flexible enough to let you define whatever searches you want, and sane enough not to produce incorrect results by default. If you will only ever search last name in a case insensitive manner, then define find_by_last_name to use upper() or lower(). One of the features people like in an ORM is the ability to let you make customizations like this in a single place instead of all over the place. You still have to tell it what to do, its not magic.
"Aaaah you are one of those people are you."
"those people"? You mean "those people" who use the right tools and techniques for the task? Yep. You mean "those people" who aren't stupid enough to think "littering your code with SQL" and using an ORM are the only possibilities? Yep. Do you normally make stuff up and then fall back on "those people" bullshit when called on it? Or did you mean to say "PHB approved industry standard practices" and "modern" was a typo? Or do you seriously think decade and a half old techniques are modern? Welcome to the 1990s, enjoy your stay.
"You know this conversation reminds of so many I had with postgres users. I remember when postgres didn't support alter table and dickwads like you were saying "there is no need for alter table just use this workaround". I remember when posgtres didn't support outer joins (I do believe it was the last database in the world to support outer joins) and dickwads like you were saying "there is no need for outer joins just your this query instead"."
No, dickwads like me were not using postgresql because it was a pain in the ass, exactly because of the lack of alter table and a few other annoying things that needed to be "worked around". Just because I don't think your fabricated problem is a real problem doesn't mean I think alter table is useless.
"Last to implement alter table, last to implement outer joins, last to implement replication, last to implement clustering, last to implement failover, last to implement case insensitive collations. Due in large part to dickwads like you."
No, due exclusively to the nature of open source projects. The developers impliment what the developers want. If you share their needs, lucky you, you can use their project. If you don't, then don't use it. Pretty simple huh? Rather amusing that you rag on postgresql for being "last to support" stuff though. If you wanted to use postgresql for real, this would not be an issue. You would either use upper() or lower() like you should, or you would install a case-insensitive data type. You just want to whine about postgresql. Feel free to do so, but its not going to suddenly make you important, and its not going to suddenly make postgresql developers do your bidding.
Yes, every shitty $3 host has php/mysql. While it is harder to type "rails hosting" into google, its still a far cry from hard.
Preparing a derivitive work is copyright infringment, and doesn't have to involve making a copy of the original.
If the companies tell all linux users to pound sand, then there will be a nice market there. Some of those companies (if past history is anything to go by, it will be all the asian ones) will just go ahead and give us docs. Then we will have high quality, stable, secure drivers. Then linux users will actually HELP get docs from the other companies since they don't have the option of using binary shit, and more companies will wake up and start treating their paying customers like customers instead of like hostages.
"Then why does every other database support it?"
Vendor A impliments "feature" designed to lock in customers. Vendor B is forced to impliment it too. Postgresql isn't a company, there is no vendor, so they aren't under the presure to screw up their software.
"No postgres implements a workaround which is not an SQL standard and is not supported by any ORM."
Right, just not the workaround you like. If you want to be portable and SQL standard, then YOU MUST USE upper() or lower(). There is no other option. Just because you are relying on a vendor extension doesn't mean postgresql should impliment it for you. And I don't believe that any ORM sucks that hard, they ALL let you define your searches. If you want to search case insensitive, then do so.
"Because littering your code with SQL is a bad programming practice. Modern programming methods use an object relational layer. You may want to read about them sometime. Oh I will answer the question for you, ilike does not use indexes."
You don't need to litter your code with SQL. You already have to build a where clause. Any ORM will let you put upper() in there, or any other SQL. You can even configure them (hibernate at least) to specify what function upper() is if you really need to. And "modern programming methods" and ORM are miles apart. OO programming is very old, as is the bizzare fetish of trying to mash anything and everything into an OO layer for no reason.
"Except that I did no such thing, "where lastname = 'McNab'" is standard. "Where lastname *~ 'McNab'" is not. See the difference?"
You are ignoring your "be case insensitive" setting. "where lastname = 'McNab'" is standard. And as per the standard, will only return rows where lastname = 'McNab', not 'mcnab'. If you want case insensitivity, then use the also standard:
"where lower(lastname) = 'mcnab'". Duh.
Setting the database to return the wrong information to a standard query means its no longer standard. This should be pretty easy to understand.
"So sorry, the developers of postgres don't really care about that."
No need to be sorry, lots of people don't care about that, at all, no really involved.
"But every vendor of databases supports case insensitive queries. Except postgres of course."
Postgres does impliment it, just not the way you want it to.
"Does ilike use indexes?"
Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you. If not then use the portable upper() or lower() like you should have been doing all along.
"Then why do all of them give you the option of case insensitive collations?"
Users of other databases give you that option?
"Over the last five years I am the only one asking for this feature? Google says that? Really?"
No, google doesn't say that. And neither did I.
"Here is a hint for you. I need feature X. Every database in the world has feature X except postgres. I guess I won't use postgres."
Good for you.
"This topic was about why people use mysql when postgres is so much better. There is a reason for you. Postgres does not support feature X."
And as I said, you don't matter. I am sure this is a problem for you. I am sure your refusal to do things correctly is for a good reason. That doesn't mean its a problem for everyone else, or even a significant number of people. "I can't switch to postgres easily because I relied on non-standard vendor specific features" isn't very compelling. You already chose your database before you made the mess, so clearly the mess is not the reason you didn't choose postgres, its just a reason you haven't migrated to it. A good reason not to migrate I might add. And not a good reason to put bad "features" that shouldn't be there into postgres. Its not GNU software, they won't just add any and every feature anyone ever requests.
"Really. First of all I would hardly call slony trivial. It's a bitch to set up. Secondly it does not support multi master replication. Finally it's not asyncronous and should not be used WANs."
Hmm, I must just be so super awesome then since slony doesn't seem to be so hard to me. Replication is master->slave. That is the definition. Master-master is clustering, which is what pgcluster is for (shocking I know). And if you want async replication then use async replication (rserv). Why do you think a sync replication package not supporting async replication is a problem?
"Pgcluster does not work over a WAN. Pgcluster is not a part of postgres it's a separate product."
Oh of course, you are doing multi master clustering over a WAN using mysql. Just because mysql isn't up front about the limitations of the replication and clustering options, doesn't mean those limitations aren't there.
"Ilike is not an SQL standard. If you have hundreds of queries already written then you have to rewrite every single one of them to use ilike. Ilike is slower then where x='y'. I don't know of any ORM on the market that uses ilike this means you can not use hibernate, activerecord, etc."
Yeah, having to change your queries never happens with migrating between other DBs. Come on, at least try to make sense. If you cared about portability, you would be using upper() or lower() in the first place. Expecting postgresql to support the vendor specific hack you like instead of the vendor specific hack they already have is just dumb. I'm lucky enough not to have to touch java, but the folks at work had no problem with getting hibernate to co-operate for this. Activerecord may well be a problem given that it is a mysql mapping, not an SQL mapping, talk to DHH about his damage not postgresql devs. And why do you think ilike is slower than x='y' in a case insensitive DB? Here's a hint, that case insensitivity isn't put there by magic fairies, that's actually code that has to execute to do that for you. Hiding the upper() from you doesn't make it faster.
"Yes thousands use it. Alas millions use oracle, mysql, mssql, and db/2. As you may have noticed postgres is not the most popular database. There is a reason for that."
Its unlikely that millions of people actually care about what you are talking about. Thousands of postgresql users think you are wrong. It doesn't seem that many other DB users think you are right. In fact, google seems to support the idea that its mostly just you posting this same shit all over the web because you like to whine about not getting your way. I don't care that postgresql is not the most popular. It never will be and that's great. I can't think of any software I use that is the most popular other than apache, and I don't use it because of its popularity. Popular != good.
"either they're not being paid very much or the oil companies will soon be bankrupt"
I will give you this, at least you are much funnier than the average troll. Those poor oil companies, I can't imagine how they can afford to pay anyone for anything. I mean seriously, how could the most profitable corporation in the world afford to pay people to do marketing for them, it just doesn't make any sense.
"will lie in order to persuade someone"
I am not trying to persuade you. I assumed you were the typical head in the sand dumbass, in which case nothing would persuade you. If you wanted to know the truth you would already have found it. But now that you've started reeling in, its obvious you are just trolling, still nobody to persuade about anything.
"Now please show me where Richard Lindzen, either of the Roger Pielkes, Roy Spencer, Fred Singer or any of the dozens of other AGW skeptics has ever weighed in on the subject of smoking."
Oh man, you are killing me! You didn't seriously just put Fred Singer in that list did you? The guy who was a senior fellow with AdTI, the known shills who will make any study to show anything you want if you pay them? The one who was the chief reviewer of their report "Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination", which called the mountains of evidence linking smoking to lung cancer "junk science" and attacked anyone and everyone involved in trying to pass laws regulating tobacco? The man who is a researcher with the "independant institute" that is funded by philip morris and exxon? Damn dude, try not to make the trolling so obvious. You would have done better to just make up people instead.
"Yes but it doesn't have what people REALLY want. Replication, clustering, failover, case insensitive where clauses."
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. I realize you are just trolling, but I will still point out the facts so that you don't breed new mysqltards.
There are a few replication options, that's trivial. Clustering and failover are provided by pgcluster. Case insensitive where clauses are provided by ilike, as you already know.
"There is a reason why people choose MySql and that's because it delivers the features people really want first. Even the features are not 100% "correct" they are delivered "good enough" to get "real work" done."
Most people I know who use mysql do so because they are using some shitty software that requires it, because they didn't know there were other free DBs, or because they are doing some high performance task where data safety doesn't matter, so they are using the fast myisam tables.
"Take case insesntive where clauses for example. For the last five years or so that I have been following the pg mailing lists there must have been hundreds of requests from people who want to switch over from mysql, ms-sql, oracle, informix, firebird etc for a case insensitive collation option. They just get ignored and told to change all their queries to use ILIKE or *~ or some other stupid non standard postgres only SQL. Oddly enough their primary excuse for not providing it is that it's not a SQL standard."
No, only from idiots who think "a" and "A" are the same thing. If you want to do a case insensitive comparison, use ilike or use upper() or lower() (depending on the circumstances).
"So if you using any kind of an ORM and you can not stomach asking your employees or web users to remember the exact capitalization of everything they have ever typed into your database then postgres is not an option."
Really? That's why thousands of people use it and have no problem at all with case insensitivity right? Being case sensitive is normal behaviour. If you want to check an email then do lower(email), this is basic stuff people learn in their first ever foray into SQL.
Natural selection is not some fundamental law of physics. Its our name for something we observed in nature. The weak, sick, unfit specimens are killed by other animals, for reasons such as food. It has nothing to do with the indiscriminate killing of all specimens of an entire species under any circumstances, especially not through the destruction of their habitat. Natural selection applies to individuals, not to species.
And natural is specifically defined as not including those things which exist only due to humans. We make the word, we make its definition, and we define it as "that thing we escaped from". We are not part of nature, we have removed ourselves from nature.
"In fact, the majority do NOT agree."
Yes they do. The US media simply reports the 1% and 99% as being 50/50.
"Guess what? The only concurring opinions are ALSO those of paid shills. People don't do scientific research for free. SOMEONE PAYS THEM, all of them."
Being paid does not make one a paid shill. The 1% of people who deny the scientific facts are all paid by oil companies or others who benefit from keeping the fabricated "controversy" going as long as possible (and no, being paid by the oil company's PR firm doesn't make them not a paid shill). Just like tobacco, the more you make it seem like there is a controversy, the longer you can delay laws being passed that would hurt your business.
"if there's a consensus, it's not scientific. If it's scientific, it doesn't involve consensus."
Wow, you are really reaching. I guess since there's scientific consensus on gravity, that must not be scientific either right? I suppose the 3 insane people who think gravity is wrong means there is a "controversy" about gravity and thus its not real.
"This kind of ad-hominem attack..."
You spelled fact wrong.
"...the whole global warming controversy. "
There is no global warming controversy. The US media portrays the paid shills lies and deception as being equally valid, plausible and supported in an attempt to appease the republicans who whine about the "liberal media". Hence morons like you hear as much of the 1% paid shills story as you do the 99%, and think there's a controversy. Bury your head in the sand all you want, it won't change the facts.
Some of the people involved in fabricating this controversy have even admitted their parts. Like writing up a nice little "how to use words that confuse the issue" doc for politicians and shills to use. "Climate change" sounds more natural and less significant than "global warming". There's documented evidence of the republican party EDITING SCIENTIFIC REPORTS to REMOVE FACTS. Almost all of the prominent anti global warming shills are being paid by exxon after filtering the money through fake "citizen's groups", trusts and PR firms. They are the same "scientists" who were so prominently skeptical about the "inconclusive" science behind smoking being harmful. The fact that they were being paid to lie about smoking was just a co-incidence right? The fact that they don't have any background in smoking or climate related fields doesn't matter right?
That's ok, I still type mysql every time I mean to type myself (just did it again) and have to backspace and fix it. I haven't even used mysql in years.
Back then it was a very small minority of scientists making that claim, with very little scientific evidence. The media blew it out of proportion. The current situation is more like smoking being dangerous. Every scientistic agrees, there is tons of evidence, and the only dissenting opinions are those of paid shills.
"Actually, I think it's more akin to why Linux is very popular for some tasks among geeks and professional sysadmins, yet rarely seen on home user desktops. It's the difference between the adoption of a mass-market, good-enough tool promoted by a wave of corporate advertising, and a tool that an informed group of users choose after serious consideration."
;) (sorry, I had to)
Interesting choice of metaphor, given that C++ has a windows-like position in the "market", and that its popularity is almost entirely based on early misleading marketing and OO hype, combined with the PHB mentality. Everyone I know who knows C++ learned it because "its what everyone uses", or because they had to for school or some project. C++ is where the jobs are, because the PHBs who know nothing about programming say so.
Incidently, I don't think linux is very often an informed choice. Most places I find are using linux "cause windows sucks". Very rarely have these people even considered other options, they frequently don't even know they exist. Why is linux more popular than any BSD? It has nothing to do with quality does it?
"I said no such thing. I have made no comment on what jobs D can't do at any point in this thread. I have simply argued that for the kind of work I do, D does not offer sufficiently compelling advantages for me to justify choosing it over C++."
Actually, your first reply was to inform me that in your very important work you need "fine programmer control" that C++ offers. The obvious implication being that you either think C++ is the only language that gives you this fine control, or you think C++ and java are the only languages that exist. You only fell back on "D isn't a big enough improvement to make the effort of switching worth it" after I pointed out that D gives you all the flexibility of C++ without the crap. But that is missing the point. Like I said, I'm not telling you to switch languages. I am saying C++ is a bad language. That doesn't mean nobody should ever use it, and it doesn't mean you should switch for existing projects. I just don't think you should dismiss the problems C++ has and pretend programmers should just never make mistakes. Its not realistic, and attitudes like that are what creates an expectation of mediocrity.
We can make newer, better tools using what we learned from older tools. You seem to think linux is good, but have you really considered what is so good about it? Its a poor reimplimentation of an obsolete operating system. The geniuses who made unix don't use unix anymore. Why are so many people now hung up on using a unix wannabe that totally missed the point? Just because something is popular, or the status quo, doesn't mean its good. Again, I am not saying nobody should ever use C++ or linux, just that practical considerations making them the right choice in certain situations doesn't negate the fact that they are nasty, ugly hacks that we should be striving to relegate to the dustbin of computing history where they belong.
"Hence the only people who really appreciate things like the power of the RIAA"
I think its mostly record execs who appreciate the power of the RIAA
"But if it were really as bad as you make out, then it wouldn't be one of the most successful programming languages ever, and if D were so much better then surely a lot more smart programmers would have switched over by now?"
.net. Certainly quality is the only factor determining the success of a product.
Of course that must be true. The best things are always the most popular right? That's why windows is so popular, because its so awesome. That's why VHS killed betamax right? I guess VB used to be a pretty good language, till it mysteriously got worse right around the time MS told the VB coders to use
"You, on the other hand, seem to think it's up to me to argue that D is not superior to C++, despite the fact that you keep claiming good things about it without actually giving any concrete examples of where it's good while C++ is a "pile of crap"."
You said that you had to use C++ because D would not do the job. I told you to give specifics. You don't seem able to provide any such specifics (shocking indeed!). C++ is a pile of crap because of all those annoying gotchas that you already admitted fill a book. I cannot think of another language with as many warts with the possible exception of perl. I am not saying Bjarne is a dumb guy. Neither is Larry Wall. But they both made a lot of very reasonable and well thought out choices in creating their languages, but didn't consider the language as a whole. They let it "evolve" too much and didn't "design" it enough. Hence C++ and perl being such hideous monsters.
"Perhaps this is why I like C++ as a practical tool for real programming jobs, but saw few real improvements over it in the design of D."
Or perhaps, since you have admittedly already invested the time learning about much of C++'s sharp toothed and hungry areas, and you are used to dealing with that crap, you don't notice what a pain C++ is? After driving your gremlin every day for 10 years, you don't realize how awful it is till you get to drive a good car, then have to go back to your gremlin. You are dismissing D because you looked at a list of features, saw that D is not designed for the 1970s, and dismissed it. A list of choices about the language doesn't really tell you how well the language works in practice. Otherwise C++ wouldn't be so bad. Just because D offers a modern language, doesn't mean its not practical. But I suppose rational thought hasn't really been part of the process of considering D for you has it? Or perhaps you might have some actual reasons why its not able to do your super awesome math that only C++ can do.
None of this changes the fact that you pretended that C++ having a book full of traps is ok, because "experienced programmers" will have memorized them all and will always remember them. The language should not hinder you. It should not be a source of mistakes and bugs. It should not require constant attention to tricky bullshit instead of letting you concentrate on solving the problem. Why do you think languages that try to bite your ass is acceptable? Demand better instead of settling for whatever you get, you'll end up learning alot in the process of finding better tools.
"What qualifies Walter Bright and co as "actually having experience having to write code"? Do you think Bjarne Stroustrup never wrote any real code?! He wrote a whole book on how he reached his decisions about how C++ would work, and it's an enlightening study of how to make a highly successful programming language."
A very enlightening book indeed. Its a great book to read, and a very good example of how you can make reasonable decisions, and end up with a horrible pile of crap. Read through it and see if you can point out any individual mistake that makes C++ bad. You can't, he explains his reasoning and its always quite sane. But the end result of making tons of individual little decisions without regard for the whole is a mess.
What qualifies Walter is having written compilers for 20+ years. Frankly, having actually written C++ compilers, including the first native C++ compiler, he has more practical experience with C++ than Bjarne does. Notice all the amazingly brilliant people who were at bell labs. Notice that nobody there would use C++, even though it was designed by a fellow bell labs genious. I don't think this is a co-incidence.
"So, what advantages does D really offer over C++, ignoring that hopelessly misleading feature comparison chart on the Digital Mars web site? Why should I, as a professional programmer with a tool that works well for the job I'm doing, invest the time and effort to learn a new language and port about 50 man-years of code to a relatively untried language with no standard, little formal support and minor commercial backing, and few users? What compelling advantage does your/Bright's proposed alternative offer me?"
Why do you refuse to listen? I didn't say you should port your existing C++ to D. I said C++ is a bad language. This is clearly a pointless discussion, as you can only seem to relate "C++ is bad" to "he wants to me stop using C++". A gremlin is a bad car. That doesn't mean you need to sell yours, or buy a new car. It just means its a bad car. You can own a bad car, drive a bad car, and still realize that its a bad car. C++ is a gremlin.
I am not getting at anything with ocaml, apparently simply using any example leads to your inability to focus on the topic. Ignore ocaml, ignore C, ignore everything else. This is very simple, when you have a language like C++ with hundreds of ugly mistakes that can bite you (you even admitted it has and needs books on how to avoid these gotchas), then programmers are stuck trying to remember and deal with these problems instead of concentrating on programming. Claiming that "experienced programmers" won't make this mistakes is bullshit, and any experienced C++ programmmer knows it (wether you admit it or not is another issue entirely). Languages should not pose problems. They should not be something you need to be aware of keeping happy. They should allow you to express the solution to the problem with as little interference as possible.
I only mentioned other languages because you seem to be under the impression that C++ is the only language that can do the job you want. I pointed out that D is very comparable and does what C++ does without the constant "oh yeah, careful about hidden problem X" that C++ is full of. The original post if you care to read it again was that programmers should not have to work around and be careful of the language. Your tool shouldn't be cutting you, use a sharper knife.
Why are C++ fans incapable of reading? Please stop with the same nonsense that has nothing to do with what I am saying.
;)
"I know that the engineers I work with would give you REALLY strange looks if you wanted them to learn OCaml."
I bet you they would. I didn't say they should learn ocaml. I said C++ is a bad language. Not quite the same is it? This has nothing to do with functional programming, or safe languages, or anything else. C++ is very poorly designed. It is trade off on top of hack on top of mistake on top of ugly. You can certainly avoid much of the problems with C++ if you treat it as C with classes, but avoiding most of a language because its so awful isn't exactly a glowing recommendation is it? If you are looking for a large pool of easily replacable programmers, C++ is a good choice. This doesn't make it a good language, or helpful to programmers.
"4. Have you worked on codes that run so long that achieving even a 3% speedup is seen as a great step forward? I'd be more than willing to bet my Intel compiler will run circles around your D compiler. Yes, circles."
I'm willing to bet you haven't tried it. If you are on a platform where you can use the intel compiler, then you are on a platform where you can use the digitalmars D compiler instead of the gnu one (which isn't quite as fast). Walter is a very bright man (no pun intended), and has DECADES of practical experience implimenting compilers. He wrote the first native C++ compiler. His C++ and D compilers are very good. Why are the only people who insist that C++ is awesome people who refuse to try anything else and dismiss everything else in ignorance? And of course, if you really would get such a benefit from 3% performance, you would be taking the time to add in little bits of hand tuned assembly. It doesn't matter how unportable it is, you can rewrite it once every 5 years when you switch platforms. But then, you are probably already doing that. Funny how people see C++ and bits of ASM as normal, but D with bits of ASM is just plain crazy!
"OO techniques can come in very handy... Sure you can do it in C but you can really start kicking ass with a well defined subset of C++"
Hence people doing smart things like generating the otherwise tedious and error prone redundant C code from ocaml. You maintain the ocaml code, which generates the very fast, but not maintainable C code, which doesn't need to be maintained. Or the more common, using a good language for the project, and writing the performance critical 10% in C.
"5. Did C++ touch you in a bad place when you were a young programmer? Why are you arguing this with such vitriol? Can you not accept that some people _like_ C++ and all the rope that it has to offer? Personally, I have yet to get bit in the ass by C++. From the passion you apply to your arguments I must be a freakin' genius."
Did C++ touch you in a good place? Why are you seeing this magical vitriol? Do you associate the use of words such as "shit" with vitriol? This is how I talk, sorry if you don't like it. I am not saying you shouldn't use C++, or that anon brave guy shouldn't either. I am saying that his dismissal of C++'s problems is stupid. C++ is full of problems that make programmers lives more difficult, and better languages don't have these problems. Very simple. Avoiding most of C++ will certainly avoid most of C++'s problems, but claiming those problems are ok because "good programmers" will have all the hundreds of gotchas memorized and will never make a mistake is just moronic. Sure, there are times when C++ is the right choice, like when you are stuck with existing C++ code. But you shouldn't pretend its a good language just because you haven't bothered to try anything else.
Of course, anyone who has used C++ more than a little has been touched in a bad place by it. Some people just get attached to their abuser because he says he loves them