I wonder who may loose out on the rain then? Also, I bet, China won't give a rat's ass as long as they have the stronger military and with annual growth of military spending in the double digits the rest of the world should better look out.
Except that C++ has several features that inherently make it hard to pick up a piece of code and understand what it does. Yes, it's very 'nice' that you can define a new version of the same function by varying its parameters - when done consistently within a well designed class library. But it's sheer laziness to refactor existing code by counting on that feature. Have pity on the poor schlub that's ultimately going to inherit your code and try to support it.
To some extent, I think C++ is fine - as long as you code your application logic as if it were in C and restrict the C++'y stuff to the class libraries you use. That avoids the problem of programmers who barely understand what the C++ compiler is doing 'designing' classes that somehow magically work - most of the time.
1. I don't see what function overloading has to do with class libraries. Also, I use that feature extremely sparingly. I would imagine that people use coding standards when working on any large project and it would be trivial to forbid that. That is hardly an argument against the use of C++. The closest I come to using something like function overloading is occasionally having a single default argument. 2. Classes that magically work (All the time, of course!) are extremely useful and make code much shorter and far easier to understand. As with all languages, you have to understand the tools that you are using. The Linux kernel is full of hand-coded "virtual" functions, "destructors" and other simulated C++ features that would be more maintainable if coded in C++.
Finally, who says that everything in C++ has to be in a class? C++ is not Java and does not have the single "hammer", the class. Therefore not everything looks like a nail! In my code only about 10% of the functions that I write are class member functions. Yes, I frequently use instances of classes that I wrote, but mostly in regular plain, old functions. OOP is one tool in a large C++ toolbox. Procedural, functional and generic programming are others and all have their uses.
My top criteria are readability/maintainability and performance and not to use every nook and cranny of the C++ language as often as possible. The most esoteric feature that I occasionally use is probably defining my own iterators in classes that conceptionally can be viewed as some kind of container and, extremely rarely, a templatized class or function. I lead a team of developers that are far less experienced in C++ and pay attention to making sure that they can do code reviews of my code w/o asking me how something works most of the time.;-)
C++ is tricky to get right in a kernel context because you cannot depend on garbage collection. When using something like STL, stuff gets scattered across more memory pools than desirable. Reallocation strategies have unknown semantics and timing.
1. What does garbage collection have to do with C++? 2. Where does it say that you have to use the STL in kernel code?
I used to program in C and still love the language. For years now I program primarily in C++, but also in Java, Python and PHP (Boy, do I *hate* this language!). I think that only idiots and masochist would prefer C over C++. C++ gives you far better abstraction capabilities. Destructors and const member functions are wonderful, just to pick two examples, and, if you understand how C++ works, you can get the same close-to-the-metal efficiency of C but with far fewer lines of code that is also safer and more reusable than the same thing written in C. It is much easier to write C++ code without memory leaks than to do the same thing in C. Finally RAII rocks.
If you didn't follow news Apple is expected to drop to the 3rd place in phone sales.
Why would Apple care which place in phone sales they're at? They're no. 1 in phone sale profits. I don't think you understand businesses. They exist to make money not to be no. 1 on some meaningless scale.
Right now it's open season on Christianity, but every other religion gets a pass.
I certainly don't feel that Islam is getting a pass right now even though many liberals are treating any criticism of Islam as "racism". Neither in the US nor here in Europe. I do suspect that you might be right concerning indigenous religions. Personally I don't know why people have warm and fuzzy feelings concerning indigenous people. Probably it's because they were and often still are victims of more technologically advanced cultures. What people tend to forget is that a) they are just as human as we are and occasionally just as nasty and b), being a victim does not make you a better person. (For idiots that try to read things into what I say that I didn't say: It also does not make them worse people.) Just look at how Israel is treating the Palestinians.
Just for the record: I am a liberal and "Fuck Hinduism, fuck Islam, fuck Buddhism and fuck $YOUR_RELIGION_HERE!"
Which religion would that be? Let me guess: The only true one! How did you figure that out? Did you compare all the world's religions when you were a kid or did you just pick the one of the people who raised you or that you happened to interact with.
All religions are bullshit and no rational person should put up with any of them!
I disagree. I would think that being able to model the future as in what would happen to *me* when I make such and such a choice has an extremely high survival advantage indeed!
I spent the last 25 years working with languages that use those and I can't remember a single instance of having a big problem because of missing a semicolon or a closing brace. OTOH, I don't know why people whine about significant leading spaces in Python. If you're not highly detail oriented, programming is the wrong profession for you anyway and editing your code is not where the time is mostly spent. At least not when you're doing it right. It should be thinking and not typing where most of the time goes.
I gave up on Windows over 20 years ago and have been using Linux and, later, MacOS since. Yes, both of those are also getting more annoying but I am still very much in control and understand how things work under the hood. Apart from a browser and very occasionally a few other programs I still use the command-line on both to do about 95% of what I do, which is mostly writing code for a living. I even start watching movies by using a command-line alias and the path to the video file. I don't get all the whining. It's not as if you'd die if you gave up Windows. A long time ago a smart friend of mine told me "I refuse to learn anything about Windows and therefore I can only get good jobs". That made a lot of sense to me as I was writing code on 2 Windows platforms at the time and always being frustrated by how much harder many things seemed to be compared to UNIX. I decided to follow his example.
Today I write C++, Python, Java and PHP (yuck!) on Linux at work and use MacOS at home. I suspect I am a lot less frustrated than if I would have stayed w/ Windows at work. I made enough money working on Linux to retire extremely comfortably when I'll reach 60.
Because what should not be true can't be true! They're evil scum-sucking bastards and we're stupid and evil for trading with them. We're making the mafia that is ruling that country stronger and stronger by buying stuff that is being manufactured there and they keep killing journalists and human rights lawyers that try to stand up for little people being crushed by their mafia.
I hope you or any family members never get into a car because that's way more dangerous than any terrorists. In the entire history of the US, terrorists have killed fewer people than the number that die in car accidents in the US in one year. So, let's just give up freedoms for a tiny incremental improvement of the odds not to die a "natural" death. Of course that's also highly questionable in this case anyway because, if all the money that was spent on snooping on you, me and millions of others would be spent on medical care for poor people you could save way more lives than by preventing a few hundred people or possibly even a few thousand being killed by terrorists every year. But, I guess, it's fuck them and our privacy as long as there is a tiny improvement in the odds of a family member of yours not dying. So either, you don't understand very simple statistics and what liberty is worth, or, you're just another selfish bastard. Oh and I consider the people that feel entitled to snoop on hundreds of millions of innocent people in order to "protect" them as just as bad as terrorists! Fuck them, and I hope they die a slow and painful death!!
because this is their business model, selling as much information about you as possible.
Utterly wrong. This is not their business model. Their model is it to, via algorithms, identify people who are most likely to respond positively to a given ad and then to show them the ad. Nowhere does this involve selling any information about even a single individual to a third party. You are simply ill informed. Also, whatever Apple does or does not claim is entirely irrelevant. After all they're a competitor. Finally, to my knowledge, there is not a single documented case of Google ever selling personal data about anybody they're tracking.
Slashdot Mirror
Rule #1: People are stupid.
Rule #2: If some human behaviour seems incomprehensible to you, see rule #1.
I wonder who may loose out on the rain then? Also, I bet, China won't give a rat's ass as long as they have the stronger military and with annual growth of military spending in the double digits the rest of the world should better look out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Except that C++ has several features that inherently make it hard to pick up a piece of code and understand what it does. Yes, it's very 'nice' that you can define a new version of the same function by varying its parameters - when done consistently within a well designed class library. But it's sheer laziness to refactor existing code by counting on that feature. Have pity on the poor schlub that's ultimately going to inherit your code and try to support it.
To some extent, I think C++ is fine - as long as you code your application logic as if it were in C and restrict the C++'y stuff to the class libraries you use. That avoids the problem of programmers who barely understand what the C++ compiler is doing 'designing' classes that somehow magically work - most of the time.
1. I don't see what function overloading has to do with class libraries. Also, I use that feature extremely sparingly. I would imagine that people use coding standards when working on any large project and it would be trivial to forbid that. That is hardly an argument against the use of C++. The closest I come to using something like function overloading is occasionally having a single default argument.
2. Classes that magically work (All the time, of course!) are extremely useful and make code much shorter and far easier to understand. As with all languages, you have to understand the tools that you are using. The Linux kernel is full of hand-coded "virtual" functions, "destructors" and other simulated C++ features that would be more maintainable if coded in C++.
Finally, who says that everything in C++ has to be in a class? C++ is not Java and does not have the single "hammer", the class. Therefore not everything looks like a nail! In my code only about 10% of the functions that I write are class member functions. Yes, I frequently use instances of classes that I wrote, but mostly in regular plain, old functions. OOP is one tool in a large C++ toolbox. Procedural, functional and generic programming are others and all have their uses.
My top criteria are readability/maintainability and performance and not to use every nook and cranny of the C++ language as often as possible. The most esoteric feature that I occasionally use is probably defining my own iterators in classes that conceptionally can be viewed as some kind of container and, extremely rarely, a templatized class or function. I lead a team of developers that are far less experienced in C++ and pay attention to making sure that they can do code reviews of my code w/o asking me how something works most of the time. ;-)
C++ is tricky to get right in a kernel context because you cannot depend on garbage collection. When using something like STL, stuff gets scattered across more memory pools than desirable. Reallocation strategies have unknown semantics and timing.
1. What does garbage collection have to do with C++?
2. Where does it say that you have to use the STL in kernel code?
I used to program in C and still love the language. For years now I program primarily in C++, but also in Java, Python and PHP (Boy, do I *hate* this language!). I think that only idiots and masochist would prefer C over C++. C++ gives you far better abstraction capabilities. Destructors and const member functions are wonderful, just to pick two examples, and, if you understand how C++ works, you can get the same close-to-the-metal efficiency of C but with far fewer lines of code that is also safer and more reusable than the same thing written in C. It is much easier to write C++ code without memory leaks than to do the same thing in C. Finally RAII rocks.
If you didn't follow news Apple is expected to drop to the 3rd place in phone sales.
Why would Apple care which place in phone sales they're at? They're no. 1 in phone sale profits. I don't think you understand businesses. They exist to make money not to be no. 1 on some meaningless scale.
Right now it's open season on Christianity, but every other religion gets a pass.
I certainly don't feel that Islam is getting a pass right now even though many liberals are treating any criticism of Islam as "racism". Neither in the US nor here in Europe. I do suspect that you might be right concerning indigenous religions. Personally I don't know why people have warm and fuzzy feelings concerning indigenous people. Probably it's because they were and often still are victims of more technologically advanced cultures. What people tend to forget is that a) they are just as human as we are and occasionally just as nasty and b), being a victim does not make you a better person. (For idiots that try to read things into what I say that I didn't say: It also does not make them worse people.) Just look at how Israel is treating the Palestinians.
Just for the record: I am a liberal and "Fuck Hinduism, fuck Islam, fuck Buddhism and fuck $YOUR_RELIGION_HERE!"
Their so-called 'native religion' is nothing but a pathetic hoax
I wholeheartedly agree! A hoax like all religions!
your religion
Which religion would that be? Let me guess: The only true one! How did you figure that out? Did you compare all the world's religions when you were a kid or did you just pick the one of the people who raised you or that you happened to interact with.
All religions are bullshit and no rational person should put up with any of them!
Lasting 1.5 days is "working great" for a g*m phone?
Boy, do I feel old.
It's not a phone you moron, it's a pocket computer! Sheesh, who uses these devices primarily for making phone calls anyway? You *are* old!
If you have no sense of self, why or how would you model future hypothetical scenarios with you as the central protagonist?
It confers no survival advantage
I disagree. I would think that being able to model the future as in what would happen to *me* when I make such and such a choice has an extremely high survival advantage indeed!
with similar specs
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah
error messages because you forgot a ; or }
I spent the last 25 years working with languages that use those and I can't remember a single instance of having a big problem because of missing a semicolon or a closing brace. OTOH, I don't know why people whine about significant leading spaces in Python. If you're not highly detail oriented, programming is the wrong profession for you anyway and editing your code is not where the time is mostly spent. At least not when you're doing it right. It should be thinking and not typing where most of the time goes.
I gave up on Windows over 20 years ago and have been using Linux and, later, MacOS since. Yes, both of those are also getting more annoying but I am still very much in control and understand how things work under the hood. Apart from a browser and very occasionally a few other programs I still use the command-line on both to do about 95% of what I do, which is mostly writing code for a living. I even start watching movies by using a command-line alias and the path to the video file. I don't get all the whining. It's not as if you'd die if you gave up Windows. A long time ago a smart friend of mine told me "I refuse to learn anything about Windows and therefore I can only get good jobs". That made a lot of sense to me as I was writing code on 2 Windows platforms at the time and always being frustrated by how much harder many things seemed to be compared to UNIX. I decided to follow his example.
Today I write C++, Python, Java and PHP (yuck!) on Linux at work and use MacOS at home. I suspect I am a lot less frustrated than if I would have stayed w/ Windows at work. I made enough money working on Linux to retire extremely comfortably when I'll reach 60.
Because what should not be true can't be true! They're evil scum-sucking bastards and we're stupid and evil for trading with them. We're making the mafia that is ruling that country stronger and stronger by buying stuff that is being manufactured there and they keep killing journalists and human rights lawyers that try to stand up for little people being crushed by their mafia.
How many rapes by catholic priests and society looked the other way? Not that I am saying that this is any kind of excuse...
Personally I never worry about borken shit. The only stuff that bothers me is broken shit!
"One" might do that but what about "Two" or "Three"? Do they do that, too? I very much doubt it.
There were 3,000 terrorist fatalities in the US in 2014?
I hope you or any family members never get into a car because that's way more dangerous than any terrorists. In the entire history of the US, terrorists have killed fewer people than the number that die in car accidents in the US in one year. So, let's just give up freedoms for a tiny incremental improvement of the odds not to die a "natural" death. Of course that's also highly questionable in this case anyway because, if all the money that was spent on snooping on you, me and millions of others would be spent on medical care for poor people you could save way more lives than by preventing a few hundred people or possibly even a few thousand being killed by terrorists every year. But, I guess, it's fuck them and our privacy as long as there is a tiny improvement in the odds of a family member of yours not dying. So either, you don't understand very simple statistics and what liberty is worth, or, you're just another selfish bastard.
Oh and I consider the people that feel entitled to snoop on hundreds of millions of innocent people in order to "protect" them as just as bad as terrorists! Fuck them, and I hope they die a slow and painful death!!
What is that? A euphemism for the "Ministry of Truth"?
When there are money, power or sex involved people are willing to lie and cheat.
because this is their business model, selling as much information about you as possible.
Utterly wrong. This is not their business model. Their model is it to, via algorithms, identify people who are most likely to respond positively to a given ad and then to show them the ad. Nowhere does this involve selling any information about even a single individual to a third party. You are simply ill informed. Also, whatever Apple does or does not claim is entirely irrelevant. After all they're a competitor. Finally, to my knowledge, there is not a single documented case of Google ever selling personal data about anybody they're tracking.