Because it's a perfectly fine language for people who care more about writing complex and efficient software than appearing hip to the brogrammer crowd.
Agreed. My thought at reading the summary was "Do older languages have some sort of expiration date I don't know about?" What's odd about it? Also, it's not like the language has been stagnant. English is an old "legacy" human language with lots of cruft and inconsistent rules, but it works well enough for us that it's not worth jumping ship for Esperanto.
That is because you aren't a hipster or fad brogrammer. These idiots probably expect them to be using Node.js or some such bullshit.
But they already have this "emergency" power. They can get backdated warrants from the FISA court now in emergencies. If they couldn't possibly obtain the after-the-fact rubber stamp then they clearly shouldn't be doing the survellience. This bill is a joke and so are these groups endorsing it.
I write C++ on a daily basis for more than a decade and have never needed that worthless book. Same with pretty much any other C++ programmer I've talked to and many are far better programmers than me. And the code we write is not the obfuscated junk that only a "patterns" person could write. The only people I've ever met who seem to think this book is great are Java people writing unmaintainable "patterns" code.
It's an even bigger joke is when you get quizzed in interviews by mindless retards who expect you to have memorized all the worthless "patterns" in the book. And god forbid if you ever look at the code these same idiots write. They make the OpenSSL codebase look like the greatest thing ever. If you ever though C macros could be used for ungodly amounts of obfuscation and indirection one only needs to look at the AbstractFactoryFactoryBuilderFacades that these "patterns" people write.
He mentions all the right factors himself: low memory, low cpu use, fast, not too many features.
But all those things are highly subjective and vague. How low is low enough CPU usage and memory usage? What CPU are you basing this off of? On my octo-core desktop "low cpu usage" is going to be "high cpu usage" on something less powerful. What is the baseline minimum RAM? Again, on my desktop with 24 GB of RAM percentage-wise "low memory use" will obviously differ. How are you objectively benchmarking "fast"? What is the objectively-defined cut off point of "too many features"? What you may think has too many features may not have all the features that I or someone else might want. So as the GP stated the term is effectively meaningless.
I just opened up Windows Explorer on Windows 7 and it took less than 1 second. And this is on a laptop I bought 6 years ago. Maybe you need to ditch the Pentium 3 shitbox you're running?
Were any of the OpenBSD people previously OpenSSL contributors? If not there is no splintering at all it's simply another group of people taking the reins.
To look behind what curtain? The one that saw their worldwide sales in 2013 increase by 10.7% and a 14% growth rate in the US? Yeah, I'm sure hems quaking in his boots.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's a perfectly fine language for people who care more about writing complex and efficient software than appearing hip to the brogrammer crowd.
Why rewrite things that are well-debugged over decades of use for untested code likely to contain tons of its own bugs?
Agreed. My thought at reading the summary was "Do older languages have some sort of expiration date I don't know about?" What's odd about it? Also, it's not like the language has been stagnant. English is an old "legacy" human language with lots of cruft and inconsistent rules, but it works well enough for us that it's not worth jumping ship for Esperanto.
That is because you aren't a hipster or fad brogrammer. These idiots probably expect them to be using Node.js or some such bullshit.
But they already have this "emergency" power. They can get backdated warrants from the FISA court now in emergencies. If they couldn't possibly obtain the after-the-fact rubber stamp then they clearly shouldn't be doing the survellience. This bill is a joke and so are these groups endorsing it.
Are you sure? I heard he worked on the A4 not the A4.
I write C++ on a daily basis for more than a decade and have never needed that worthless book. Same with pretty much any other C++ programmer I've talked to and many are far better programmers than me. And the code we write is not the obfuscated junk that only a "patterns" person could write. The only people I've ever met who seem to think this book is great are Java people writing unmaintainable "patterns" code.
It's a fucking shame that W. Richard Stevens died so young. His books are still tremendously valuable references and extremely well written.
It's an even bigger joke is when you get quizzed in interviews by mindless retards who expect you to have memorized all the worthless "patterns" in the book. And god forbid if you ever look at the code these same idiots write. They make the OpenSSL codebase look like the greatest thing ever. If you ever though C macros could be used for ungodly amounts of obfuscation and indirection one only needs to look at the AbstractFactoryFactoryBuilderFacades that these "patterns" people write.
He mentions all the right factors himself: low memory, low cpu use, fast, not too many features.
But all those things are highly subjective and vague. How low is low enough CPU usage and memory usage? What CPU are you basing this off of? On my octo-core desktop "low cpu usage" is going to be "high cpu usage" on something less powerful. What is the baseline minimum RAM? Again, on my desktop with 24 GB of RAM percentage-wise "low memory use" will obviously differ. How are you objectively benchmarking "fast"? What is the objectively-defined cut off point of "too many features"? What you may think has too many features may not have all the features that I or someone else might want. So as the GP stated the term is effectively meaningless.
I just opened up Windows Explorer on Windows 7 and it took less than 1 second. And this is on a laptop I bought 6 years ago. Maybe you need to ditch the Pentium 3 shitbox you're running?
How is it false? From what objective source is "art" defined?
Everything libav supports.
There is an OpenBSD fork. It's called Bitrig.
They are not going to put back in the original code. They will build a proper portability layer. Just like what was done for OpenSSH.
Yes. See: OpenSSH.
Were any of the OpenBSD people previously OpenSSL contributors? If not there is no splintering at all it's simply another group of people taking the reins.
Sure it did.
On July 22, 1999, Microsoft entered the chat markets with MSN Messenger Service. Our AOL “interop” was in it.
DMCA became law effective October 28, 1998.
He did a round-the-world trip in a Mercedes.
To look behind what curtain? The one that saw their worldwide sales in 2013 increase by 10.7% and a 14% growth rate in the US? Yeah, I'm sure hems quaking in his boots.
And their next step is to start aggressively push cars such as their future B-Class EVs. It's not as if Mercedes is standing still and doing nothing.
Have you heard of jokes and/or sarcasm?
Who's this Eric you refer to?
But that's written in C and C is the worst programming language ever!! How dare they be so dumb to not write Python in a "memory safe" langauge!
Sure you can. It's called binary patching. It's how people patch bugs in closed-source games.
Unless the language is portable to all platforms it's useless for a portable library. And none of those "safe" langauges are portable as C.