C++ is an extension of C... a continuation of it's ideals to see the machine as the machine sees itself, to allow the programmer latitude with the machine while giving ways for the programmer to protect itself from common problems.
C++ is not distinct from C because it's evolution has been driven by adhering to the systems oriented philosophy of C and also by a very real effort to keep C++ "compatible" with C.
Obviously, to take advantage of C++'s improvments, you have to learn and use them.
I'm a bit out of date on RTTI implmentations but I did see that mentioned, which sounds great. A pointer to what though?
Anyway, RTTI can be a great thing (and beats building your own dynamic typing system when you need one) but I'm with Stroustrup that the need for one shows improper design in the most general case.
btw, I love C++. The point is that C++ has many available paradigms and idioms available, this gets it a lot of teasing... but it's a strength... a project is to choose the idiom it prefers and stick with it.
there can't be a distinction, C++ owes itself to an "improved C" mentality. C people can dissown C++ (except the parts that made it into ANSI C) but C++ people can't dissown C... and don't want to.
it is a big improvement... but all done in the spirit of C, and in fact, all done with C compatibility always a driving force, and moreover, a sense of not offending C users too much.
I'm influenced in this claim by the fact that I'm reading Stroustrup's History of C++ from 1994, and this is a constant theme.
The thing is not that it's "merely" an extension, but that it's part of C's growth, not a criticism of C, not even "fixing" C, really, but more, "improving" C and maintaining the principle that it's about the machine, the metaphors come from the machine or don't contradict the nature of the machine, and that you don't have to take baggage for features when you don't use them... the spirit of efficiency.
C was invented to write UNIX. That's why it was invented. Could it have been invented without that motivation... um... yeah, but fact is, it was invented to write Unix system utilities and so it's not suprising there is a philosophical bond between Unix and C.
I'm not making a logical connection, this is a historical one.
actually stroustrup did his best to keep C++ still in line with the theory of working like the machine, and he did a good job. He merely added an object oriented idiom to C, and also imposed a little bit of his type checking philosophy.
basically C/C++ try to do things the machines way. if the machine can do it, C/C++ can do it. Unix benefits from that thinking... except when it comes to ejecting the fucking CD!
Early this year I would have bought a powerbook except that I wanted a tablet. Why? Because I hand draw diagrams to prepare my work and because I don't like typing notes at meetings.
Tablets do for handwritten work what word processors did for typing. Yes it's a niche, not everyone uses hand drawn notes, diagrams, etc... but it's also not a niche that's going away. A tablet computer is much preferable to lots and lots of paper notepads.
As for price... well, I need a notebook too for programming and got a combination tablet/notebook, it cost the same as other good notebooks like IBM T41 and the Powerbook with similar specifications EXCEPT the display, which is more low resolution. That is... the tradeoff was between higher resolution and the ability to write on the display... fair trade. (fwiw, keyboardless tablets seem useless to me... but they might make sense in hospitals, for delivery people, that sort of thing)
Another reason to get a tablet from Apple besides the fact that this tablet is the only reason I have to run WinXP is I suspect Apple will smooth the edges... the interface in XP Tablet is not really as pen freindly as it could be.
I hope they do this. But having said all that... Jobs has vowed not to before... he loathes the Newton experience (so I hear anyway)... so I'm not holding my breath.
which is made inside stars... it therefore takes at least one generation of stars to blow up and reform to make planets with life (even life as we don't know it... hydrogen cannot make enough complex chemistry).
Using the life span of stars (including really big stars that can form the heavier atoms) we are near the first generation of life generating planets.
(1) well, my point would be that BSD and GPL are both Free, and the term "free" has enough variability of meaning that saying which is more free is just a matter of asking "with respect to what criteria". It's not pointless, but you will find criteria in support of either one, precisely because both provide both gratic and libre "types" of freedom but with unique characteristics.
(2) I think you are right it's fine to charge a fee for software if you like. It's even "fine" to do this with BSD software, after all, the creators have expressly allowed it. HOWEVER: I remember a day before the GPL and free software was generally in the public domain. It was not better for free software. There was not more free software, it was not better. Basically what happens is a commercial company comes and makes a fork which competes with the original. The original cannot keep up because anything they do is available to commercial fork but not vice versa. It's like a ratchet, it only goes in one direction, and that's toward the commercial advantage. The GPL addressed a very important issue for people that want to share their code but not feel or be taken advantage of. I can imagine that the US government should use BSD style licenses... they want commerce to prosper, and such code can also be put into GPLed products. For individuals, it's less clear to me why they would want to use a BSD license.
(3) While you seem to have been far more civil than the AC (shocker!:) I think he's right in that you also seem to be pushing "standard FUD", namely BSD style GPL-ain't-free type FUD. It's your right to spread this by the way, so I don't fault that, just an observation.
(4) summary, standing back from the flaming portion of this debate. Both licenses are "free". They achieve different goals like two different libraries or two different pieces of software. To judge which one prefers is partially a matter of personal preference, but also a matter of what one hopes to accomplish.
the "free" doesn't have one defintion, first off, so this debate (in which the AC I agree with looks like an asshole) is really crazy semantic BS because no one seems to admit there are different definitions of freedom which are separate if somewhat related.
Also, what the hell is going on with even the idea of "one defintion of freedom"? If there were just one for you guys to debate, it would not be absolute.
It's like "Being Smooth". Nothing is smooth. If you magnify anything enough it is not smooth... but it's smooth to some margin of deviation. So the term "smooth" has some value, even though it's never absolutely true.
So with ALL absolute senses of all terms. BSD is not absolutely free, and Linux is not absolutely free, nothing is and nothing can be, absolutes are internally inconsistent, they always lead to problems such as theistic ideas of Omnipotence. Can God make a stone so heavy he can't lift it... and if not, there is a power he does not have.
Having said that... Linux is more self interested than the BSD license. So what... nothing wrong with protecting yourself.
It's not going to be that way. Hardware breaks. It needs support, it needs replacing. Software does not, indeed, replacing software with better software often breaks things and should be done with care in a working system.
The only question is exactly when Sun jumped the shark.
I say Java. So goodbye Sun, but thanks for the Java, it's nice.
It's likely that Einstein's theory is an approximation, a special case of a more complete theory, just as Newton's laws are a special of Einsteins more complete General Relativity.
So I agree with you on that part.
But why would you say we can't study the speed of light properly? It's fast... but not too fast to study. If you bounce light off a mirror on the moon, it takes a few seconds to return, so all you need to do with light to study it is give it a very long path. Did you mean something else?
The clip doesn't show it, because it ends too soon, but the pump and car all burn up because the fire is already in her gas tank (she removes the nozzle near the end of the video).
The girl returns to the front of her car and when she comes back to the handle it explodes in flame. Static electricity is the culprit. see for yourself.
http://www.trumbullct.com/videos/gas%20fire%20cl ip %2002-13-04.avi
computer are overrated for education...
on
The Flickering Mind
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
... in the same way that books are.
I mean, if you don't know how to read, them thing 're useless.
Slashdot Mirror
C++ is an extension of C... a continuation of it's ideals to see the machine as the machine sees itself, to allow the programmer latitude with the machine while giving ways for the programmer to protect itself from common problems.
C++ is not distinct from C because it's evolution has been driven by adhering to the systems oriented philosophy of C and also by a very real effort to keep C++ "compatible" with C.
Obviously, to take advantage of C++'s improvments, you have to learn and use them.
using C++ as a better C is the first step to enlightenment.
Note: if you use ALL the techniques of C++ in your programs at the same time, then you are not a good programmer, period.
I'm a bit out of date on RTTI implmentations but I did see that mentioned, which sounds great. A pointer to what though?
Anyway, RTTI can be a great thing (and beats building your own dynamic typing system when you need one) but I'm with Stroustrup that the need for one shows improper design in the most general case.
btw, I love C++. The point is that C++ has many available paradigms and idioms available, this gets it a lot of teasing... but it's a strength... a project is to choose the idiom it prefers and stick with it.
there can't be a distinction, C++ owes itself to an "improved C" mentality. C people can dissown C++ (except the parts that made it into ANSI C) but C++ people can't dissown C... and don't want to.
memory behind your back... not really, you can
(0) on exception: sure, don't use C++ exceptions in the kernel. no need.
(1) control the allocation or even, gasp, not use classes, which are just one idiom available in C++.
(2) re: writing in C anyway, C/C++... yes, why not use C++ as a better C... or is the "const" keyword evil.
A C bigot... perhaps?
but don't use runtime type checking in the kernel please.
or exceptions.
your hard drive is going to burn up it's bearings from vibration.....
that's what it all about man.
i'll put lines in my coloring book if I want... and take em out if I want.
In fact, i'll even do the opposite of what I want! that'll show em.
the title was serious though.
what... they didn't talk to me? I used BBSs!
it is a big improvement... but all done in the spirit of C, and in fact, all done with C compatibility always a driving force, and moreover, a sense of not offending C users too much.
I'm influenced in this claim by the fact that I'm reading Stroustrup's History of C++ from 1994, and this is a constant theme.
The thing is not that it's "merely" an extension, but that it's part of C's growth, not a criticism of C, not even "fixing" C, really, but more, "improving" C and maintaining the principle that it's about the machine, the metaphors come from the machine or don't contradict the nature of the machine, and that you don't have to take baggage for features when you don't use them... the spirit of efficiency.
C was invented to write UNIX. That's why it was invented. Could it have been invented without that motivation... um... yeah, but fact is, it was invented to write Unix system utilities and so it's not suprising there is a philosophical bond between Unix and C.
I'm not making a logical connection, this is a historical one.
actually stroustrup did his best to keep C++ still in line with the theory of working like the machine, and he did a good job. He merely added an object oriented idiom to C, and also imposed a little bit of his type checking philosophy.
are $$$$
think Cobol plus Y2K, come back with this point when it's all the way dead.
and there is a philosophical connection.
basically C/C++ try to do things the machines way. if the machine can do it, C/C++ can do it. Unix benefits from that thinking... except when it comes to ejecting the fucking CD!
just a little joke with my humor.
what other logical way is there?
the idea that neither arch pays the penalty is impossible unless... they BOTH pay the penalty.
I'm certain they don't just save copies of both arrangements.
Early this year I would have bought a powerbook except that I wanted a tablet. Why? Because I hand draw diagrams to prepare my work and because I don't like typing notes at meetings.
Tablets do for handwritten work what word processors did for typing. Yes it's a niche, not everyone uses hand drawn notes, diagrams, etc... but it's also not a niche that's going away. A tablet computer is much preferable to lots and lots of paper notepads.
As for price... well, I need a notebook too for programming and got a combination tablet/notebook, it cost the same as other good notebooks like IBM T41 and the Powerbook with similar specifications EXCEPT the display, which is more low resolution. That is... the tradeoff was between higher resolution and the ability to write on the display... fair trade. (fwiw, keyboardless tablets seem useless to me... but they might make sense in hospitals, for delivery people, that sort of thing)
Another reason to get a tablet from Apple besides the fact that this tablet is the only reason I have to run WinXP is I suspect Apple will smooth the edges... the interface in XP Tablet is not really as pen freindly as it could be.
I hope they do this. But having said all that... Jobs has vowed not to before... he loathes the Newton experience (so I hear anyway)... so I'm not holding my breath.
which is made inside stars... it therefore takes at least one generation of stars to blow up and reform to make planets with life (even life as we don't know it... hydrogen cannot make enough complex chemistry).
Using the life span of stars (including really big stars that can form the heavier atoms) we are near the first generation of life generating planets.
(1) well, my point would be that BSD and GPL are both Free, and the term "free" has enough variability of meaning that saying which is more free is just a matter of asking "with respect to what criteria". It's not pointless, but you will find criteria in support of either one, precisely because both provide both gratic and libre "types" of freedom but with unique characteristics.
(2) I think you are right it's fine to charge a fee for software if you like. It's even "fine" to do this with BSD software, after all, the creators have expressly allowed it. HOWEVER: I remember a day before the GPL and free software was generally in the public domain. It was not better for free software. There was not more free software, it was not better. Basically what happens is a commercial company comes and makes a fork which competes with the original. The original cannot keep up because anything they do is available to commercial fork but not vice versa. It's like a ratchet, it only goes in one direction, and that's toward the commercial advantage. The GPL addressed a very important issue for people that want to share their code but not feel or be taken advantage of. I can imagine that the US government should use BSD style licenses... they want commerce to prosper, and such code can also be put into GPLed products. For individuals, it's less clear to me why they would want to use a BSD license.
(3) While you seem to have been far more civil than the AC (shocker!:) I think he's right in that you also seem to be pushing "standard FUD", namely BSD style GPL-ain't-free type FUD. It's your right to spread this by the way, so I don't fault that, just an observation.
(4) summary, standing back from the flaming portion of this debate. Both licenses are "free". They achieve different goals like two different libraries or two different pieces of software. To judge which one prefers is partially a matter of personal preference, but also a matter of what one hopes to accomplish.
the "free" doesn't have one defintion, first off, so this debate (in which the AC I agree with looks like an asshole) is really crazy semantic BS because no one seems to admit there are different definitions of freedom which are separate if somewhat related.
Also, what the hell is going on with even the idea of "one defintion of freedom"? If there were just one for you guys to debate, it would not be absolute.
It's like "Being Smooth". Nothing is smooth. If you magnify anything enough it is not smooth... but it's smooth to some margin of deviation. So the term "smooth" has some value, even though it's never absolutely true.
So with ALL absolute senses of all terms. BSD is not absolutely free, and Linux is not absolutely free, nothing is and nothing can be, absolutes are internally inconsistent, they always lead to problems such as theistic ideas of Omnipotence. Can God make a stone so heavy he can't lift it... and if not, there is a power he does not have.
Having said that... Linux is more self interested than the BSD license. So what... nothing wrong with protecting yourself.
It's not going to be that way. Hardware breaks. It needs support, it needs replacing. Software does not, indeed, replacing software with better software often breaks things and should be done with care in a working system.
The only question is exactly when Sun jumped the shark.
I say Java. So goodbye Sun, but thanks for the Java, it's nice.
It's likely that Einstein's theory is an approximation, a special case of a more complete theory, just as Newton's laws are a special of Einsteins more complete General Relativity.
So I agree with you on that part.
But why would you say we can't study the speed of light properly? It's fast... but not too fast to study. If you bounce light off a mirror on the moon, it takes a few seconds to return, so all you need to do with light to study it is give it a very long path. Did you mean something else?
The clip doesn't show it, because it ends too soon, but the pump and car all burn up because the fire is already in her gas tank (she removes the nozzle near the end of the video).
l ip %2002-13-04.avi
The girl returns to the front of her car and when she comes back to the handle it explodes in flame. Static electricity is the culprit. see for yourself.
http://www.trumbullct.com/videos/gas%20fire%20c
... in the same way that books are.
I mean, if you don't know how to read, them thing 're useless.
I miss it, but sustainable doesn't really apply to it any more. But ebay's here.
Sometimes to find out what works you have to just, well, see if it's working.
Let me check....
Yep, ebay's working.
when I was young we had to signal our computer orders (usally replacement beads for the abacus) with damp blankets using smoke signals.
And we liked it.