Insects are a good source to refine vitamins and other nutrients. That doesn't mean we should eat them. What we should do is just eat the raw nutrients once they've been extracted from insects.
Where is the real map so that we can compare it to it? Why can't people write good articles? Including the current map for comparison should have been an obvious thing to do.
This is probably because you chose subpar smartphones. CyanogenMod is mostly maintained by smartphone enthusiasts, and those people simply get the better phones.
A library dedicated to a single thing will always do it better. Qt is certainly not the best library at networking or video. Any serious networking or video application that also uses Qt will *not* use Qt for networking or video.
Just use different libraries for audio, video, networking, video capture, recording, image acquisition, you name it. Do one thing, an do one thing well. Do too many things at once, and none of them will be good.
I wouldn't call "decent" the C++ support in Visual 7.1. Not even in Visual 2010. Visual 2012 is getting close to be "decent", although "decent" is pretty far from "good".
The kind of code I write is often more advanced than the average Boost code (I am also a Boost developer). Yet I can tell that MSVC10 is quite decent. It's still swarmed with fundamental bugs everywhere, but MSVC11 and even MSVC12 are not really significantly better in that regard, despite sporting more C++11 features. Nothing that cannot be worked around.
For C++ that doesn't require too much advanced features (no advanced usage of ADL, SFINAE, overloading and partial specializations), MSVC7.1 is ok enough that it's possible to target it.
It's a minor concern in the context of using Qt. Feel free to write typesafe code around it.
So I should wrap all the code around signals registering and invoking?
Those two words say a lot. Unfortunately, despite having been exposed to unusual things, you're still associating the things that are frowned upon by the establishment as something abnormal and sick. By doing so you are comforting moralizing politicians that having unusual interests is grounds for ostracising people or taking them to mental institutions.
That's a vast subject. Mostly it overuses OOP instead of making use of the multi-paradigm nature of C++, stays away from language features that weren't well supported in 1997, and duplicates a lot of things that are done better elsewhere.
MOC provides introspection. Until introspection gets wrapped into C++, there's no way around it. No, template metaprogramming doesn't provide anything to bridge that gap. Seriously. When you use GObject, you're writing all the introspection data yourself, or vala does it for you just like moc does it. How is writing introspection data by hand going to make you more productive I just don't know. Aren't we supposed, you know, to use tools to get rid of menial tasks? Why do C/C++ users generally scoff at code generation if it's a part of a framework? That's just silly IMHO. MOC is a good thing. It saves you from doing stupid shit that the compilers stubbornly refuse to do. Why is that so hard to understand?
I'm all for automatically generated code. I use various kinds of automatic code generation everyday, and it's even related to my research topics. MOC just isn't a good way to do it. There are plenty of ways to have better introspection. Yes, you can have introspection with template meta-programming, and that's probably the most useful kind of introspection ever, since introspection is mostly useful for generative programming, and generative programming is better done at the meta level. But I digress.
There's nothing particularly egregious about having a yet another implementation of a container library that the toolkit can depend on
Except it's not an implementation of the standard containers. It's not conforming at all and largely inferior in design.
To see what a large-scale project that uses C++ standard library had to go through over the years, have a look in lyx-devel. LyX is nowhere near as portable as Qt is. It simply won't compile on a lot of platforms that Qt itself compiles on, even though LyX uses Qt, through a platform abstraction layer going back to the times when they used an X-only toolkit and were unsure about whether Qt would "catch on".
I have worked on many projects with millions of lines of code of C++, working on many compiler versions, operating systems and hardware architectures. Targeting standards with multiple implementations is indeed much more work than targeting a single piece of software, simply because the code might rely on non-standard behaviour or the implementation might have some bugs. But that's pretty much obvious. The same problems exist everywhere, be it interoperability between video-conference systems built by different vendors to different browsers rendering websites in standard HTML/CSS differently. You can also choose to stick to a single standard implementation for all your targets (some C++ compiler/standard library combinations are available on all operating systems of note).
COW is not braindead. It simply defers copying until it absolutely has to be done.
Here is a better idea: don't copy until you absolutely have to do it. See other parts of the thread for my replies on the subject.
C++ standard library implementations do the very same thing, yet you seem not to bitch about that...
The C++ standard have never allowed COW for containers, and has outlawed it for string since C++11. This is for obvious iterator validity reasons.
Where is Qt type unsafe when it does not need to be? Do realize that runtime-checked pre-Qt5 signals and slots are typesafe . A type-mismatched connection won't ever crash your program. It may fail and you get a runtime warning on the debug output, but that's it. You can have type safety without full compile-time checking; you seem to confuse the two.
A type safe program doesn't cause type errors at runtime. Qt slots do not help in writing type safe programs, though they do point out when type errors occur.
Exactly what good C++ language features does Qt avoid? All that time I was thinking that C++ was a reasonably good indicator at
"moc" provides introspection you would hardly get another way
Not true. You can get it with plenty of other ways, including normal usage of the embedded preprocessor.
That's still OOP and C++.
Associating C++ with OOP is a problem. It's a multi-paradigm language. OOP has very few valid use cases. If you want OOP abused everywhere, use Java.
Qt does not duplicate the STL, it provides similar functionalities
It has its own set of containers, strings, iterators, all of which use are not conforming to the standard concepts. They might have better implementations in some cases (for example a custom hash map implementation optimized for a given usage pattern might be faster than the general-purpose one of your standard library implementation), but the design is not as well-crafted and is significantly less flexible.
Indeed it uses COW almost everywhere it might make sense.
COW never makes sense unless it's used to implement partial data sharing within a larger data collection. That's not the case in Qt. In Qt it's just used because the bad design forces the framework to copy many objects even though it's not needed.
Sometimes it's a real nice thing to be able to return a QString by value for (almost) free
I don't understand how that's related. Returning a local variable or temporary variable by value is always "free" (doesn't call copy constructors) regardless of COW. It's called NRVO, though that it is a silly name. It's not really an optimization. It's more a matter of ABI.
don't forget all of this was created long before we had rvalues and move semantic in C++.
rvalue references allow to distinguish lvalues and rvalues at the language level. There was no problem implementing move semantics by handling rvalues explicitly. Before C++11, people used swap when they needed to move. Qt containers didn't even have swap before 4.7 (2010).
"Good" language features are usually "modern" language features (sure, not always, I know). Because Qt tries to be available for older compilers, even awful proprietary ones (Visual C++ anyone?), it has to do tradeoffs here and there.
Current Qt only works with Visual C++ 9 (2008) and higher, Visual C++ 10 (2010) or higher is even highly recommended. Decent C++ support has been available since Visual C++ 7.1 (2003).
About typesafety, well... I won't really disagree on this one;-) but it's a real minor concern really
Type safety, a minor concern!? The point of C++ is that it has a powerful type system that can catch errors. Type errors are ones of the worst type of errors you can have in a program.
MOC, duplicates everything that is in the standard library, braindead usage of COW everywhere, avoids usage of good language features, type unsafe when it does not need to be, etc.
A paper written by Google is always considered more significant than real academic research, even if it ignores all prior art. See MapReduce for example. What a grand innovation from Google.
Surely you realize the video decoding on phones is done with dedicated hardware. You could do it on the CPU though, the latest models (Galaxy S4 and all) should be powerful enough.
I still use GNOME.
on
The Last GUADEC?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I personally still use GNOME. I've always preferred GTK+ over Qt, not only because I prefer its look, I also prefer the fact that it is focused on being a GUI toolkit, while Qt is a kitchen sink with a horrible C++ design and full of stuff better done elsewhere. GNOME 3 is shit, but you can still run gnome-panel just fine (and metacity if you want it), even with Ubuntu, and that's what I do.
The more serious problem is that with the obsolescence of GTK+, we may end up not having a good standard GUI toolkit to write applications on Linux anymore. There is much focus on graphics lately with the alternatives to X.org being developed, but Linux still doesn't have a good solution to make graphical apps with resolution independence, proper text rendering, fluid layout and good accessibility. Not that other operating systems are being that much better at any of this.
Little things like mental associations with dogs. Up to what the role of religion is.
You probably don't share those ideas with your own close friends or neighbors, why would you share them with some random person across the globe? Religious beliefs and philosophy are extremely diverse without having to go far from home.
Depending on who you are, the role of religion might be to enlighten, to manipulate, to give a framework for social interaction, to enslave, to establish order, etc. (all of which are pretty much the same thing, but people usually don't notice that). About dogs, I have no idea what you mean. For some it's the best companion to men (be it as a friend or as a tool), for others it's just a dumb and dirty animal.
The Four Asian Tigers (Singapore, Hong-Kong, Taiwan, South Korea) are all fairly "westernized", and to a lesser extent so is Japan. Hollywood movies are not made for the Chinese market. Do you really think the Chinese respects copyright?
The Japanese will go see it, but they will be disappointed. It claims to be similar to Japanese mecha anime and live action shows, but it's nothing like it. It's more like Transformers.
The main issue with this movie is that the studio and all persons involved had very limited culture and knowledge of the genre they were supposed to make.
Slashdot Mirror
Free does not require public domain.
Some applications of scientific computing can be worth doing on a tablet, in particular those tied to visualization.
Insects are a good source to refine vitamins and other nutrients.
That doesn't mean we should eat them. What we should do is just eat the raw nutrients once they've been extracted from insects.
Where is the real map so that we can compare it to it?
Why can't people write good articles? Including the current map for comparison should have been an obvious thing to do.
This is probably because you chose subpar smartphones.
CyanogenMod is mostly maintained by smartphone enthusiasts, and those people simply get the better phones.
This is a well-known subject. There is no need for me to detail everything here. Just search the Internet.
It's out?
Why didn't anyone tell me?
A library dedicated to a single thing will always do it better. Qt is certainly not the best library at networking or video.
Any serious networking or video application that also uses Qt will *not* use Qt for networking or video.
Just use different libraries for audio, video, networking, video capture, recording, image acquisition, you name it.
Do one thing, an do one thing well. Do too many things at once, and none of them will be good.
The kind of code I write is often more advanced than the average Boost code (I am also a Boost developer).
Yet I can tell that MSVC10 is quite decent. It's still swarmed with fundamental bugs everywhere, but MSVC11 and even MSVC12 are not really significantly better in that regard, despite sporting more C++11 features. Nothing that cannot be worked around.
For C++ that doesn't require too much advanced features (no advanced usage of ADL, SFINAE, overloading and partial specializations), MSVC7.1 is ok enough that it's possible to target it.
So I should wrap all the code around signals registering and invoking?
Those two words say a lot. Unfortunately, despite having been exposed to unusual things, you're still associating the things that are frowned upon by the establishment as something abnormal and sick.
By doing so you are comforting moralizing politicians that having unusual interests is grounds for ostracising people or taking them to mental institutions.
That's a vast subject.
Mostly it overuses OOP instead of making use of the multi-paradigm nature of C++, stays away from language features that weren't well supported in 1997, and duplicates a lot of things that are done better elsewhere.
I'm all for automatically generated code. I use various kinds of automatic code generation everyday, and it's even related to my research topics.
MOC just isn't a good way to do it. There are plenty of ways to have better introspection.
Yes, you can have introspection with template meta-programming, and that's probably the most useful kind of introspection ever, since introspection is mostly useful for generative programming, and generative programming is better done at the meta level. But I digress.
Except it's not an implementation of the standard containers. It's not conforming at all and largely inferior in design.
I have worked on many projects with millions of lines of code of C++, working on many compiler versions, operating systems and hardware architectures. Targeting standards with multiple implementations is indeed much more work than targeting a single piece of software, simply because the code might rely on non-standard behaviour or the implementation might have some bugs.
But that's pretty much obvious. The same problems exist everywhere, be it interoperability between video-conference systems built by different vendors to different browsers rendering websites in standard HTML/CSS differently. You can also choose to stick to a single standard implementation for all your targets (some C++ compiler/standard library combinations are available on all operating systems of note).
Here is a better idea: don't copy until you absolutely have to do it.
See other parts of the thread for my replies on the subject.
The C++ standard have never allowed COW for containers, and has outlawed it for string since C++11.
This is for obvious iterator validity reasons.
A type safe program doesn't cause type errors at runtime. Qt slots do not help in writing type safe programs, though they do point out when type errors occur.
Not true. You can get it with plenty of other ways, including normal usage of the embedded preprocessor.
Associating C++ with OOP is a problem. It's a multi-paradigm language. OOP has very few valid use cases. If you want OOP abused everywhere, use Java.
It has its own set of containers, strings, iterators, all of which use are not conforming to the standard concepts. They might have better implementations in some cases (for example a custom hash map implementation optimized for a given usage pattern might be faster than the general-purpose one of your standard library implementation), but the design is not as well-crafted and is significantly less flexible.
COW never makes sense unless it's used to implement partial data sharing within a larger data collection. That's not the case in Qt. In Qt it's just used because the bad design forces the framework to copy many objects even though it's not needed.
I don't understand how that's related. Returning a local variable or temporary variable by value is always "free" (doesn't call copy constructors) regardless of COW. It's called NRVO, though that it is a silly name. It's not really an optimization. It's more a matter of ABI.
rvalue references allow to distinguish lvalues and rvalues at the language level. There was no problem implementing move semantics by handling rvalues explicitly. Before C++11, people used swap when they needed to move. Qt containers didn't even have swap before 4.7 (2010).
Current Qt only works with Visual C++ 9 (2008) and higher, Visual C++ 10 (2010) or higher is even highly recommended. Decent C++ support has been available since Visual C++ 7.1 (2003).
Type safety, a minor concern!?
The point of C++ is that it has a powerful type system that can catch errors. Type errors are ones of the worst type of errors you can have in a program.
MOC, duplicates everything that is in the standard library, braindead usage of COW everywhere, avoids usage of good language features, type unsafe when it does not need to be, etc.
A paper written by Google is always considered more significant than real academic research, even if it ignores all prior art.
See MapReduce for example. What a grand innovation from Google.
Surely you realize the video decoding on phones is done with dedicated hardware.
You could do it on the CPU though, the latest models (Galaxy S4 and all) should be powerful enough.
I personally still use GNOME. I've always preferred GTK+ over Qt, not only because I prefer its look, I also prefer the fact that it is focused on being a GUI toolkit, while Qt is a kitchen sink with a horrible C++ design and full of stuff better done elsewhere.
GNOME 3 is shit, but you can still run gnome-panel just fine (and metacity if you want it), even with Ubuntu, and that's what I do.
The more serious problem is that with the obsolescence of GTK+, we may end up not having a good standard GUI toolkit to write applications on Linux anymore.
There is much focus on graphics lately with the alternatives to X.org being developed, but Linux still doesn't have a good solution to make graphical apps with resolution independence, proper text rendering, fluid layout and good accessibility. Not that other operating systems are being that much better at any of this.
It's fine, really.
The use of C++ that Qt makes is much more of a travesty.
You probably don't share those ideas with your own close friends or neighbors, why would you share them with some random person across the globe?
Religious beliefs and philosophy are extremely diverse without having to go far from home.
Depending on who you are, the role of religion might be to enlighten, to manipulate, to give a framework for social interaction, to enslave, to establish order, etc. (all of which are pretty much the same thing, but people usually don't notice that).
About dogs, I have no idea what you mean. For some it's the best companion to men (be it as a friend or as a tool), for others it's just a dumb and dirty animal.
The Four Asian Tigers (Singapore, Hong-Kong, Taiwan, South Korea) are all fairly "westernized", and to a lesser extent so is Japan.
Hollywood movies are not made for the Chinese market. Do you really think the Chinese respects copyright?
That's also what I'm talking about.
Hollywood's money comes from the people who buy tickets to see the movies.
The Japanese will go see it, but they will be disappointed.
It claims to be similar to Japanese mecha anime and live action shows, but it's nothing like it. It's more like Transformers.
The main issue with this movie is that the studio and all persons involved had very limited culture and knowledge of the genre they were supposed to make.
The Great Gatsby looked marvellous which was a very nice touch to an interesting story.
That money was well spent IMO.
What's so complicated about either of those movies?
I don't get it.
Are some viewers really that much intellectually challenged?