If, by this, they're referring to their bull****ing, I guess that's one claim
of theirs that can go on record as being
What is "bull****ing? Bullsitting? Bullcamping?
Bullfishing? Bullsorting?
Bullfucking? Bullsinging? Bulllicking?
Really, if you're such
a puritan little wuss about foul langauge, either don't use the language or
give us enough so we know what the fuck you're trying to say. If you think
and mean "bullshit", is your act of blotting out some of the letters somehow
less offenseive? If it's offenseive at all, no not really. It's just a
word, if there's anything wrong with it (there's not) you've already thought
it and sort-of communicated it, so spare us you self-censoring, mmmmkay?
Science doesn't fully understand genetics, evolution, breeading, or species specific gene maps. but we've been breeding plants and animals for thousands of years.
Who cares what people expect? You have no innate right to the exclusive use of your name, no matter who you are. The intellectual property meme has mutated beyond all common sense. If people expect one thing, and get another, they'll soon learn to expect something else. Maybe even they'll learn to use better tools for finding information on the web than typeinsthingofinterest.com (who does that anymore, anyhow? just type it in google). People need to realize that domain names are not a good index or indication of content. All of these cases show that. The small space of names indicate that. The overlap of content names, acronyms, business names, etc. make it inevitable. These disuputes are all a waste of time and money. The sooner we go to first-come-first-serve domain names, the sooner they become truly meaningless, and the sooner the world turns to better information location systems, and the sooner the bottom-feading scum that are domain squatters will have to go find another scummy business to annoy all the hard working upstanding people of the world with.
When you tried to beat a "boss" that was designed in the days of a 6mhz 80286 on 40mhz 386DX you wanted the "pinto" speed effect of that "Turbo" button.
Only if you think cheating is a fun way to play games.
Yes, the constituion can be changed, and those changes (ammendments) become part of the constitution, however, Congress can't change the constitution (included ammendments) by itself, which is what the OP claimed.
This is just another "me too" effort by Microsoft. They make so money off they're monopoly market, then can affort misadventures like this all day long.
Yeah, that's pretty funny. Makes for nice slogans at the inevitable software engineering strikes in the US:
"Let outsourcing start with Management"
"Outsourcing for commodity labor: start with the CEO".
Say an American programmer works for $30/hr and an Indian programmer works for $3/hr. $27/hr savings, not bad. Say a CEO works for $1.2M/yr, $600/hr. The outsourced Indian CEO will work work for $3/hr. $597/hr saving - great!
Put your objects in a vector, and put a verbose copy constructor in it, and see what happens throughout your program.
If the objects are small, then the copying done by the vector will be likely inconsequential. If the objects are larger, but the vector doesn't get rearranged very often (e.g. things are only added to it), you'll still do ok because of the growing behaviour of vectors (constant amortized time). If the objects are large, and you're worried about this, you can use a vector to pointers to the object - just like you would maintain an array of things in C but with lots more features. Then the copy constructor won't be invoked for any of the vector operations. Finally, a called copy constructor represent the same amount of work you'd have to do with C initializations and memcpy style struct copying. The copy constructor provides a convenient way to abstract this work to improve the life of the programmer. In C++, the copy constructor can often be inlined, and is often largely optimized away, though your instrumentation will likely be the most expensive part of the code, after the optimization.
I don't understand in what case you think dynamic memory in C++ involves excessive calls to copy constructors? Perhaps you could provide a short example?
I use dynamic memory in C++ all the time and it's minimally just as easy as C and usually better because you can leverage other features of C++ (e.g. RAII). I write C++ professionally, but no, I don't have a PhD in C++
As far as you last statement,
I'm talking minimally about the same code, people that dislike C++ often forget that C++ encompasses C; i.e. C programming styles are part of the toolbox of C++. However, beyond that, C++ provides additional tools and paradigms that give the advantages I mentioned.
Please, concrete examples where dynamic memory management in C++ is a disaster? Afterall, you can use (and I sometimes do) use malloc/realloc/free in C++.
When I say devleoping in C++ is easier than C, I don't mean just reduced typing time. C++ has features that make factoring and abstraction of code much easier: generics, objects, destructors, etc. I'm sorry I haven't programmed with gtk in a while, so I don't know off-hand what C++ idioms and paradigms might help, but maybe this would. You have a function that pops up a window. The function needs to always close and free the window, but there are multiple return paths from the function because of some other logic. In C, you either repeat code dealing with resource freeing or use goto stamements and labels (still tedious). In C++, you have put the object encapsulating the resource on the stack and then not worry about it thereafter. This advantage is increased for real code where some things are initialized and some things aren't - a C style case label would have to check them all. In C++, only automatic objects reached have destructors called.
You're correct about a godd library being important. Again, it's been a while since I used glib, but the stl is much easier to use and more powerful, in my recollection.
Can't you read? "Hard on the eyes" is obviously a statement of opinion, just as "You suck" and "Pantera Rocks" and "She is so hot" and "your momma is an ugly bitch" are statements of opinion. None of these need to be prepended by "I think".
That's funny, but why would you want to use C++ if you can do it in a smaller, more efficient way in C?
What do you mean by smaller and more efficient?
Code Size? Virtually all valid ansi C will compile to the same object code when compiled under a C++ compiler. It's possible in this case that the C++ code image still might be marginally larger because of start up code, libraries, etc, though I would doubt that this would matter except in rare situations. In embedded systems, for example, there are efforts to control these size increases.
Code Speed? Unless there are paging effects caused by the rare problem discussed above, the C code compiled under the C++ compiler will be the same speed as under the C compiler. However, is some situations, the C++ compiler can produce faster code: a common example is the C function-pointer qsort method versus the C++ stl sort using functors.
Source Code Size? C++ will blow away C in this department.
Developer efficiency? Libraries make a world of difference, but with the standard libs for both, C++ will blow away C in this department.
Of course, there are ways to write bad C++ that will eliminate any of these advantages, but that's the nature of powerful tools.
Tired of not being able to express the exact moderation you want? Discouraged by the ancient and inadequate slasdot moderation categories? Well dispair no more, you and your moderating friends can construct the moderation you think a post deserves with these handy moderation recipes:
Probably not, but you're the only one stupid enough to point it out to a world that doesn't give a shit about your inability to read, the mundane peculiarities of your mental free-association, or the innane crap you find funny. Thank you, please come again.
Yeah, they're both not stealing, but instead possible copyright infringement or contract violations. Begin "stealing != copyright infringement" flame war here ->
This just in: over 195,000* people die every day!!!!! Stop the madness, the world's population is being ritually deathified by the serial killers and harmful product placement ads and life ending agents of the world!. Write to your congress critter now - 195,000 senseless deaths every day!!!!!! You could be next!!!! No one is safe!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Good job chiding the moderators for hypothetical actions, anonymous asshat.
You rock my world.
Heh - good stuff. Original or swiped?
What is "bull****ing? Bullsitting? Bullcamping? Bullfishing? Bullsorting? Bullfucking? Bullsinging? Bulllicking?
Really, if you're such a puritan little wuss about foul langauge, either don't use the language or give us enough so we know what the fuck you're trying to say. If you think and mean "bullshit", is your act of blotting out some of the letters somehow less offenseive? If it's offenseive at all, no not really. It's just a word, if there's anything wrong with it (there's not) you've already thought it and sort-of communicated it, so spare us you self-censoring, mmmmkay?
Third from the top in my bookmark list?
Thank you and have a nice day.
Only if you think cheating is a fun way to play games.
?
The moderators. They're alwasy right, afterall
Also, article 18? wtf - read it.
This is just another "me too" effort by Microsoft. They make so money off they're monopoly market, then can affort misadventures like this all day long.
Say an American programmer works for $30/hr and an Indian programmer works for $3/hr. $27/hr savings, not bad. Say a CEO works for $1.2M/yr, $600/hr. The outsourced Indian CEO will work work for $3/hr. $597/hr saving - great!
If the objects are small, then the copying done by the vector will be likely inconsequential. If the objects are larger, but the vector doesn't get rearranged very often (e.g. things are only added to it), you'll still do ok because of the growing behaviour of vectors (constant amortized time). If the objects are large, and you're worried about this, you can use a vector to pointers to the object - just like you would maintain an array of things in C but with lots more features. Then the copy constructor won't be invoked for any of the vector operations. Finally, a called copy constructor represent the same amount of work you'd have to do with C initializations and memcpy style struct copying. The copy constructor provides a convenient way to abstract this work to improve the life of the programmer. In C++, the copy constructor can often be inlined, and is often largely optimized away, though your instrumentation will likely be the most expensive part of the code, after the optimization.
I use dynamic memory in C++ all the time and it's minimally just as easy as C and usually better because you can leverage other features of C++ (e.g. RAII). I write C++ professionally, but no, I don't have a PhD in C++
As far as you last statement, I'm talking minimally about the same code, people that dislike C++ often forget that C++ encompasses C; i.e. C programming styles are part of the toolbox of C++. However, beyond that, C++ provides additional tools and paradigms that give the advantages I mentioned.
Please, concrete examples where dynamic memory management in C++ is a disaster? Afterall, you can use (and I sometimes do) use malloc/realloc/free in C++.
You're correct about a godd library being important. Again, it's been a while since I used glib, but the stl is much easier to use and more powerful, in my recollection.
You're an asshat (I think).
What do you mean by smaller and more efficient?
Code Size? Virtually all valid ansi C will compile to the same object code when compiled under a C++ compiler. It's possible in this case that the C++ code image still might be marginally larger because of start up code, libraries, etc, though I would doubt that this would matter except in rare situations. In embedded systems, for example, there are efforts to control these size increases.
Code Speed? Unless there are paging effects caused by the rare problem discussed above, the C code compiled under the C++ compiler will be the same speed as under the C compiler. However, is some situations, the C++ compiler can produce faster code: a common example is the C function-pointer qsort method versus the C++ stl sort using functors.
Source Code Size? C++ will blow away C in this department.
Developer efficiency? Libraries make a world of difference, but with the standard libs for both, C++ will blow away C in this department.
Of course, there are ways to write bad C++ that will eliminate any of these advantages, but that's the nature of powerful tools.
HAND
Construct your own recipes! It's Offtopic+Interesting=Irrelevant Fun!!!!
(c) 2004 by scotch, all rights waived
Probably not, but you're the only one stupid enough to point it out to a world that doesn't give a shit about your inability to read, the mundane peculiarities of your mental free-association, or the innane crap you find funny. Thank you, please come again.
I don't think that's a feature per se of any "capitalist system", but more a feature of a free market system. Of course, IANAE.
Yeah, they're both not stealing, but instead possible copyright infringement or contract violations. Begin "stealing != copyright infringement" flame war here ->
Make up your mind: is it going to change some time but not soon, or never?
* 5000000000 / (365.25 * 70)
If it's not a religion, why do they call themselves, uh, skeptics, and why do they support "skepticism"?
If it's not a religion, why do they call themselves "plagiarists", and why do they support, uh, "plagiarism"?
Havne't read much Criton (sphere, not great, but readable), but that single quote makes me think he's a drooling asshat. Comments?