C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
You definitely earned funny points for that one. I got a good laugh.
Me too, I'm not sure who gets credit for the quote though.
Operator overloading?
Not sure if that makes C++ harder. But I've seen people disagree.
I like the idea of operator overloading a lot. In Ruby it's great. I find it a bit cumbersome in C++ though, things like dealing with friend/global functions, e.g. for appending to a stream with <<.
To the credit of operator overloading and templates, they make the standard library interfaces mostly nice.
Destructors?
finalize
Unfortunately finalize is incredibly quirky as you have absolutely no say or guarantee about when your object will be gc'd. I've tried a few times to find the "right" way to use finalize and it seems to be almost always discouraged.
Getting rid of memory management and multiple inheritance from C++ doesn't begin to give you Java.
Operator overloading? virtual, pure virtual functions? namespaces (not quite like packages)? Templates? (Even Java generics are less convoluted.) Destructors? Global variables? Const correctness?
I'm not much of a fan of Java (the language), but C++ is just awful. I waste more time when I write C++ than I gain (compared to writing object-oriented C).
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
As for why it's useless, if your child is not ready to see "stuff", and they see "stuff", and then you press the panic button, they won't _unsee_ stuff. In fact, they would probably remember it for a very long time.
Yes. Panic button == my parents are panicking. What could possibly be more compelling (and guilt-forming) to a kid than something that makes their parents leap out of their chair pounding a big red panic button?
Fun thing to try with your kids: next time they break some stupid little thing, yell "oh my god", act flustered, hide the remains quickly and insist that they never speak of it again. Let sit for 8-10 years or until emotional problems are fully developed.
Yes you may think brainwashing is wrong. But...
Brainwashing: 1) reduce target to the mentality of a child 2) imprint them with the values you want them to have.
There is no difference, kids just come pre-washed.
Tags are more of a pain to maintain, but can be more useful. I actually make use of the genre tag quite a bit (after fixing the genre tags on my songs to whatever I feel like calling them). Having a ton of compilation albums, I like being able to search by artist and find single tracks on V/A's that otherwise I'd forget were there. Etc.
Organizing on the filesystem is fine and has its advantages too, unless you own an ipod or other music player that organizes by tags. It's enough of a pain to fix a thousand filenames or to fix a thousand sets of tags, but I don't want to do both. I'd rather ignore the filenames or have my music player name/rename/move things for me based on the tags.
Wanna know why I invariably beat the shit out of old ladies and shoot up strip clubs when I play GTA?
Because it's the only kind of behaviour that ANYTHING in the environment is programmed to actually react interestingly to.
Honestly, throw a fucking cup of soda at some woman on the street and she'll start screaming and running like you just shot her.
As far as being able to do ridiculous and uninhibited things in an enormous city with zero consequences goes, there are an awful lot of things that would be way more fun to do than punching old people. The game is designed to make it fun to drive and/or kill people, that's it.
If it's legal then more athletes will do it. Athletes who don't want to will either be at a disadvantage or have to take drugs they otherwise wouldn't just to keep level with their competition.
If you have something you need to secure, you need to be able to access it. If you can access it, someone else can threaten to shoot you and force you to access it for them. No kind of security is going to fix that, so it's not really an issue.
Nov 9 2005 - Halo 2 came out? 2004 - initial release of Firefox? 1994 - Darmstadtium is discovered? 1921 - einstein gets a nobel prize for work with the photoelectric effect?
Wikipedia not helping, too many geeky things on Nov 9... maybe it's a USA thing.
There is no possible way they could get anyone to use this unless this big new high-capacity network can access the current internet. Like you said, the internet is just a big network - they can change the infrastructure, the protocols, whatever, it's still going to be a bunch of computers networked together.
People generally seem to like this internet. If a new one pops up and you can get all the old HTTP and so on through it but you have a ton more bandwidth - well, no one's going to see it as anything more than more bandwidth. If you can't access the old internet through it, all the businesses, bloggers, social networks, etc, would take an awful lot of convincing to try and re-establish themselves over a new "internet".
So stupid that it's going to make a lot of people a shit-ton of money.
Yes, it distorts the intent of HTTP and hypermedia. Yes, it's full of accessibility and indexing issues. Yes, the bullshit DOM (don't blame Javascript, it's a pretty neat language on its own) and browser incompatibilities make the prospect of developing rich applications on the web ridiculous.
That's not going to stop it from happening. Why?
People are lazy. Not-computer-smart people are lazy and also not-computer-smart, and a lot of them are probably becoming more aware of that fact as more and more of their younger relatives let out that disgusted sigh when they get asked to fix their computer and see the mountains of junk they've downloaded. Smart, but not-computer-smart people have a fairly good intuitive sense that 99% of the apps/etc that they "find" online ("Sponsored Links" wut) are garbage and are the reason their Windows runs like shit, and smart enough to realize they don't know how to tell the difference.
In short, I think a lot of people are getting the sense that downloading software is kind of, well, bad. Unless their geeky neice or nephew tells them it's ok.
(there's sort of a point hidden in here, but I definitely failed at actually making it clearly.)
Slashdot Mirror
You definitely earned funny points for that one. I got a good laugh.
Me too, I'm not sure who gets credit for the quote though.
Not sure if that makes C++ harder. But I've seen people disagree.
I like the idea of operator overloading a lot. In Ruby it's great. I find it a bit cumbersome in C++ though, things like dealing with friend/global functions, e.g. for appending to a stream with <<.
To the credit of operator overloading and templates, they make the standard library interfaces mostly nice.
finalize
Unfortunately finalize is incredibly quirky as you have absolutely no say or guarantee about when your object will be gc'd. I've tried a few times to find the "right" way to use finalize and it seems to be almost always discouraged.
For me: What makes C++ difficult is ++. :)
Getting rid of memory management and multiple inheritance from C++ doesn't begin to give you Java.
Operator overloading? virtual, pure virtual functions? namespaces (not quite like packages)? Templates? (Even Java generics are less convoluted.) Destructors? Global variables? Const correctness?
I'm not much of a fan of Java (the language), but C++ is just awful. I waste more time when I write C++ than I gain (compared to writing object-oriented C).
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
Shotgun blast to their joy department...
I don't know what that means, but I think I like the sound of it.
Why don't we just kill them, pickle their corpses and tape a Yak-Bak to their jars that plays "Yes mom I love you"?
Bonus if you have that awesome one that lets you fuck with the pitch of their voice.
As for why it's useless, if your child is not ready to see "stuff", and they see "stuff", and then you press the panic button, they won't _unsee_ stuff. In fact, they would probably remember it for a very long time.
Yes. Panic button == my parents are panicking. What could possibly be more compelling (and guilt-forming) to a kid than something that makes their parents leap out of their chair pounding a big red panic button?
Fun thing to try with your kids: next time they break some stupid little thing, yell "oh my god", act flustered, hide the remains quickly and insist that they never speak of it again. Let sit for 8-10 years or until emotional problems are fully developed.
Yes you may think brainwashing is wrong. But ...
Brainwashing:
1) reduce target to the mentality of a child
2) imprint them with the values you want them to have.
There is no difference, kids just come pre-washed.
Nothing else sends a clearer signal to your impressionable children that violence is wrong than a shotgun blast to their faces.
fixed
"By Design"
Tags are more of a pain to maintain, but can be more useful. I actually make use of the genre tag quite a bit (after fixing the genre tags on my songs to whatever I feel like calling them). Having a ton of compilation albums, I like being able to search by artist and find single tracks on V/A's that otherwise I'd forget were there. Etc.
Organizing on the filesystem is fine and has its advantages too, unless you own an ipod or other music player that organizes by tags. It's enough of a pain to fix a thousand filenames or to fix a thousand sets of tags, but I don't want to do both. I'd rather ignore the filenames or have my music player name/rename/move things for me based on the tags.
Wanna know why I invariably beat the shit out of old ladies and shoot up strip clubs when I play GTA?
Because it's the only kind of behaviour that ANYTHING in the environment is programmed to actually react interestingly to.
Honestly, throw a fucking cup of soda at some woman on the street and she'll start screaming and running like you just shot her.
As far as being able to do ridiculous and uninhibited things in an enormous city with zero consequences goes, there are an awful lot of things that would be way more fun to do than punching old people. The game is designed to make it fun to drive and/or kill people, that's it.
I'd like to grease your axle.
All these spelling mistakes are making me loose it. To much!
But "used to" is right. He was making it worse.
Did you know flammable in French is "inflammable"?
Good times.
Yeah, irregardless of the fact that I should be use to reading this sort of thing by now, it literally made my head explode when I read it.
They're. Fixed that for you.
Their. Fixed that for you.
Beck and call? Is that one?
I was never sure about that one.
I don't see it... your post is a red herring.
Nope, either way is alright. ...
I mean all right.
woosh.
Get back in the truck, goat!
Uh, it's really not that hard to name a punk band.
You could be the Revolving Shitsacks or Vagina Melt or Raging Weasel Spleen or...
If it's legal then more athletes will do it. Athletes who don't want to will either be at a disadvantage or have to take drugs they otherwise wouldn't just to keep level with their competition.
But then that's irrelevant.
If you have something you need to secure, you need to be able to access it.
If you can access it, someone else can threaten to shoot you and force you to access it for them.
No kind of security is going to fix that, so it's not really an issue.
I don't get it either.
Nov 9 2005 - Halo 2 came out?
2004 - initial release of Firefox?
1994 - Darmstadtium is discovered?
1921 - einstein gets a nobel prize for work with the photoelectric effect?
Wikipedia not helping, too many geeky things on Nov 9... maybe it's a USA thing.
There is no possible way they could get anyone to use this unless this big new high-capacity network can access the current internet. Like you said, the internet is just a big network - they can change the infrastructure, the protocols, whatever, it's still going to be a bunch of computers networked together.
People generally seem to like this internet. If a new one pops up and you can get all the old HTTP and so on through it but you have a ton more bandwidth - well, no one's going to see it as anything more than more bandwidth. If you can't access the old internet through it, all the businesses, bloggers, social networks, etc, would take an awful lot of convincing to try and re-establish themselves over a new "internet".
So stupid that it's going to make a lot of people a shit-ton of money.
Yes, it distorts the intent of HTTP and hypermedia. Yes, it's full of accessibility and indexing issues. Yes, the bullshit DOM (don't blame Javascript, it's a pretty neat language on its own) and browser incompatibilities make the prospect of developing rich applications on the web ridiculous.
That's not going to stop it from happening. Why?
People are lazy. Not-computer-smart people are lazy and also not-computer-smart, and a lot of them are probably becoming more aware of that fact as more and more of their younger relatives let out that disgusted sigh when they get asked to fix their computer and see the mountains of junk they've downloaded. Smart, but not-computer-smart people have a fairly good intuitive sense that 99% of the apps/etc that they "find" online ("Sponsored Links" wut) are garbage and are the reason their Windows runs like shit, and smart enough to realize they don't know how to tell the difference.
In short, I think a lot of people are getting the sense that downloading software is kind of, well, bad. Unless their geeky neice or nephew tells them it's ok.
(there's sort of a point hidden in here, but I definitely failed at actually making it clearly.)
This is all I can find...
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.3.0/gcc/Non_002dbugs.html#Non_002dbugs
This is gcc-specific and I'm not sure it totally proves what I was saying.
Basically it says though that something like
int i = 1;
func(i++, i++);
could end up being func(2, 3) or func(3, 2)...
that might mean comma-separated expressions aren't inherently ordered.