not all religions involve God, capital G. And too many protestants have tried to convince me that atheist is a religion to think that "under God" does not in fact establish a religion that is not ahtiesm. It might not be Baptist... maybe it's a whole new America Under God religion. Maybe the God is a whole new kind of god, like a giant dog that plays banjo and drinks Italian Soda, but whatever it is, it's not paganism, it's not atheism, it's not Zoroastrianism or a thousand other religions.
It DOES establish a religion, what on eath else could it be doing there. Is it a historical comment?
I agree with you about the danger of allegiance but let me also say it's a matter of what you ahve to allege to.
If you allege to a Queen, or to a Flag or even a country, that's a bit like a blank check. Unconditional support, right or wrong.
But if you allege to the Constitution of the United States of America, well there are ideas there that you can allege to or not, and that allegience might actually, if real, force you to stand up and criticice your country or flag or queen.
I say the correct answer is to change the pledge to one where it's the Constitution that is alleged to, because it really does express, for better or worse but mostly better, the real core meaning of being American.
there is nothing unamerican about wanting the phrase to be removed. There is something wrong with thinking this nation is "under God". And it's the fact that... well, it's not under God.
I've interviewed "senior" programmers a fair bit, and I'm invariably struck by how many of them (basically all) can't do something as simple as a thread-safe getter/setter in C++, but even the more junior programmers can get it right in Java on the first try. These are the kind of mistakes that literally steal weeks of productivity.
but aren't you implying we baby this condition? These guys are frauds. They need more education. They could get that education on-line! They could get it from good books. Amazon can even lead them to good books (if they know one good book).
Programming in C may be like free climbing, but C++ isn't... that's the point of contructors and the class idiom in C++... ropes and wedges and all the rest. You don't have to touch a pointer in C++.
I think people are objecting (I don't know about you) to the fact that you are ALLOWED to free climb in C/C++... but they claim you HAVE to.:)
The businessmen whine when you do it, but they only respect you if you kick them in the balls.
They don't really expect you to let them use your GPLed code for free, but don't be suprised when they try. It's just a sign they don't see a way to win, it's right before they compromise. Ordinary people don't build up a lot of bad will before compromising, knowing they've ruined the potential relationship. But american businessmen are stupid that way. It's like a hazing or a bar room brawl. Kill Cisco's ass and next year Forbes will talk about how great you are and the limlitless benevolence of your power.
I think you make an interesting point about a lot of this depending on the quality of C++ programmer, and I would extend that to admit that there are certain level of programmer that will always need a simplified environment, and that's fine.
But for professional developers, wouldn't it be best if we just focussed on making he best tools and educating our industry to use them properly?
I mean, if you look, there are a lot of tools of convienience in the hardware store that professional builders don't use. You can duct tape something and it's good to go, but that's not what you train engineers... though they might use duct tape in a pinch.
I think you might be onto something about Java for newer programmers. I already have learned about all the things Java is to save me from, like the ins and outs of memory management, so I don't notice an speed up when I code in Java. The kinds of bugs I have to hunt in my stuff is not particularly addressed, and can't really by, by any language.
If a java program was written in a couple days, and the C equiv in a month... that implies something. There is not that much difference in the language. That sounds like library availability, the C programmer had to write something that was already available in Java, which begs the question... was there a good library available they didn't know about and could they have used C++. The 10% would still make it a better tool and worthwhile.
But where we really will probably have to agree to disagree is just on the "needless complexity" issue. That needless complexity is C++ giving you more than you need --- so you can decide what you need and have a wide range of paradigms under which you can code. That is C++ not trying to second guess for you. If C++ give an automagical solution, it also give no-solution so you can build your own automagic. If you don't like cout, there is still printf and if you don't like exceptions, it's up to you and your Coding Standards to decide is you have to use them.
It's that old choice vs. chaos. Personally, I can handle the chaos of choice.
I see what you are saying. I came to C++ the "easy" way... I programmed in C and slowly adopted C++ idioms that made sense (I still am not fond of iostream classes). So for years I did not use exceptions or template classes. I have only in the last couple of years started using STL in earnest, now that it's settled down.
Even though the compilers have mostly caught up to the language, I still think this is the way to go with C++... you don't use C++ full bore using all it's fun idioms, C++ is multiparadigmed, your program isn't supposed to be. Even with good compilers you need to limit yourself to the tools C++ offers that fit your problem domain.
PS: there is little doubt in my mind that the VM is becoming specialized, and if it becomes specialized then it really can outperform a compiled language IN is special domain. The domain of Java is Busines To Business, and it's so well supported in that sphere, even I would not argue that it's not becoming the best platform for the kind of applications you mention.
the vector is not as basic as you seem. The array, with no bounds checking is primative, vectors, which resize and guard their bounds are not as primative, and there are many ways to do this.
Besides, many people consider something that is a part of a languages standard library as part of the language. I'm with you though, and vector was worth having when it was separate, and part of the STL.
ok, you're right, in context it was fair to focus on source.
and I agree about developer time being important. However, the idea that Java saves developer time is a promise I have yet to seen proven. Just like "Java can run fast as C" is a promise I've heard but not seen proven.
The comparisons are possible, but you are right, it won't be the compiler output, because one compiler is creating output that is nothing but data to the real program, the VM.
The real contest is the built-at-compile time and built-for-the-task-at-hand programs created with C/C++ vs the VM. C++ source compiles to a program, it has to be compared with another program. That program is the VM. The question is, can your VM, a program that is designed to be able to do anything, ever really compete with C++ programs which are designed to do a specific thing?
no, that doesn't mean you suck. However, if you have the self-discipline to change languages over such issues, why not use a pointerless paradigm and appropriate class systems in C++.
In other words, what's wrong with C++ that a good class system doesn't answer? And why redeem C++ this way? Because of it's no-overhead philosophy --- that is, if you love garbage collections, a C++ garbage collecting class is going to be more efficient and more tunable to your particular needs. Why not use that if the result is more efficient?
As you point out, the tools to find memory leaks are quite mature and plentiful. The tools to avoid them, patterns of development, are equally mature. I think it's useful to learn them. Running away from them cannot succeed, as the issues are those of basic logical style. Open paren, close paren. Open bracket, close bracket. Allocate, Free, New, delete. This bookending of control is ubiquitous. When you allocate something, you have to free it. In java this means setting the reference to null, not thinking about it is a recipe for disaster.
It's been a long time since I've blown past the end of an array is use the standard vector class now.
If you get the reading from the Bible that you do, I fear you are creating a God to be what you want Him to be. But He never changes; and look what He did to the pre-flood world - he annihilated all but 8 people. He is just as upset about sin now as then, since He does not change.
but you suppose that you have a more direct access to what God is... reading the same book, but taking it more literally. But I have pointed out the errors and human editing of that book, so you can't really claim a more litteral reading is a more truthfull one. I'm afraid the God you are advocating is the one King James created.
Feel free to pray for me, but perhaps you should prey for the poor indian children that are going to hell because they never even heard of Jesus, they are more deserving. I've heard.
Slashdot Mirror
what you forget is that atheists are patriots too. They WANT to pledge allegience to the country, but have to pledge to be "under God" to do so.
not all religions involve God, capital G. And too many protestants have tried to convince me that atheist is a religion to think that "under God" does not in fact establish a religion that is not ahtiesm. It might not be Baptist... maybe it's a whole new America Under God religion. Maybe the God is a whole new kind of god, like a giant dog that plays banjo and drinks Italian Soda, but whatever it is, it's not paganism, it's not atheism, it's not Zoroastrianism or a thousand other religions.
It DOES establish a religion, what on eath else could it be doing there. Is it a historical comment?
I agree with you about the danger of allegiance but let me also say it's a matter of what you ahve to allege to.
If you allege to a Queen, or to a Flag or even a country, that's a bit like a blank check. Unconditional support, right or wrong.
But if you allege to the Constitution of the United States of America, well there are ideas there that you can allege to or not, and that allegience might actually, if real, force you to stand up and criticice your country or flag or queen.
I say the correct answer is to change the pledge to one where it's the Constitution that is alleged to, because it really does express, for better or worse but mostly better, the real core meaning of being American.
there is nothing unamerican about wanting the phrase to be removed. There is something wrong with thinking this nation is "under God". And it's the fact that... well, it's not under God.
I'd like to get back to the tradition in this country my grandma grew up with... Separation of Church and State.
... discuss ...
>blogs that will hire
I've interviewed "senior" programmers a fair bit, and I'm invariably struck by how many of them (basically all) can't do something as simple as a thread-safe getter/setter in C++, but even the more junior programmers can get it right in Java on the first try. These are the kind of mistakes that literally steal weeks of productivity.
:)
but aren't you implying we baby this condition? These guys are frauds. They need more education. They could get that education on-line! They could get it from good books. Amazon can even lead them to good books (if they know one good book).
Programming in C may be like free climbing, but C++ isn't... that's the point of contructors and the class idiom in C++... ropes and wedges and all the rest. You don't have to touch a pointer in C++.
I think people are objecting (I don't know about you) to the fact that you are ALLOWED to free climb in C/C++... but they claim you HAVE to.
The businessmen whine when you do it, but they only respect you if you kick them in the balls.
They don't really expect you to let them use your GPLed code for free, but don't be suprised when they try. It's just a sign they don't see a way to win, it's right before they compromise. Ordinary people don't build up a lot of bad will before compromising, knowing they've ruined the potential relationship. But american businessmen are stupid that way. It's like a hazing or a bar room brawl. Kill Cisco's ass and next year Forbes will talk about how great you are and the limlitless benevolence of your power.
I am not kidding.
I think you make an interesting point about a lot of this depending on the quality of C++ programmer, and I would extend that to admit that there are certain level of programmer that will always need a simplified environment, and that's fine.
But for professional developers, wouldn't it be best if we just focussed on making he best tools and educating our industry to use them properly?
I mean, if you look, there are a lot of tools of convienience in the hardware store that professional builders don't use. You can duct tape something and it's good to go, but that's not what you train engineers... though they might use duct tape in a pinch.
I think you might be onto something about Java for newer programmers. I already have learned about all the things Java is to save me from, like the ins and outs of memory management, so I don't notice an speed up when I code in Java. The kinds of bugs I have to hunt in my stuff is not particularly addressed, and can't really by, by any language.
If a java program was written in a couple days, and the C equiv in a month... that implies something. There is not that much difference in the language. That sounds like library availability, the C programmer had to write something that was already available in Java, which begs the question... was there a good library available they didn't know about and could they have used C++. The 10% would still make it a better tool and worthwhile.
But where we really will probably have to agree to disagree is just on the "needless complexity" issue. That needless complexity is C++ giving you more than you need --- so you can decide what you need and have a wide range of paradigms under which you can code. That is C++ not trying to second guess for you. If C++ give an automagical solution, it also give no-solution so you can build your own automagic. If you don't like cout, there is still printf and if you don't like exceptions, it's up to you and your Coding Standards to decide is you have to use them.
It's that old choice vs. chaos. Personally, I can handle the chaos of choice.
I see what you are saying. I came to C++ the "easy" way... I programmed in C and slowly adopted C++ idioms that made sense (I still am not fond of iostream classes). So for years I did not use exceptions or template classes. I have only in the last couple of years started using STL in earnest, now that it's settled down.
Even though the compilers have mostly caught up to the language, I still think this is the way to go with C++... you don't use C++ full bore using all it's fun idioms, C++ is multiparadigmed, your program isn't supposed to be. Even with good compilers you need to limit yourself to the tools C++ offers that fit your problem domain.
PS: there is little doubt in my mind that the VM is becoming specialized, and if it becomes specialized then it really can outperform a compiled language IN is special domain. The domain of Java is Busines To Business, and it's so well supported in that sphere, even I would not argue that it's not becoming the best platform for the kind of applications you mention.
cheers.
the vector is not as basic as you seem. The array, with no bounds checking is primative, vectors, which resize and guard their bounds are not as primative, and there are many ways to do this.
Besides, many people consider something that is a part of a languages standard library as part of the language. I'm with you though, and vector was worth having when it was separate, and part of the STL.
C++ is not an object oriented language, it's a multiparadigmed language with some OO idioms available for the paradigm you use in the end.
even the standard library is not object oriented.
but with '//' comments.
why? C is a paradigm available in C++ and if it's really best, it is available.
Of course, no doubt, a few contructors and other lightwieght C++ idioms would sneak in, becuase they introduce no overhead.
the key to what C++ gives you is in Stroustrups comments one enforcing invariance. C is missing some syntax that helps one accomplish this.
and be multiparadigmed, and you shall be the light.
ok, you're right, in context it was fair to focus on source.
and I agree about developer time being important. However, the idea that Java saves developer time is a promise I have yet to seen proven. Just like "Java can run fast as C" is a promise I've heard but not seen proven.
The comparisons are possible, but you are right, it won't be the compiler output, because one compiler is creating output that is nothing but data to the real program, the VM.
The real contest is the built-at-compile time and built-for-the-task-at-hand programs created with C/C++ vs the VM. C++ source compiles to a program, it has to be compared with another program. That program is the VM. The question is, can your VM, a program that is designed to be able to do anything, ever really compete with C++ programs which are designed to do a specific thing?
no, that doesn't mean you suck. However, if you have the self-discipline to change languages over such issues, why not use a pointerless paradigm and appropriate class systems in C++.
In other words, what's wrong with C++ that a good class system doesn't answer? And why redeem C++ this way? Because of it's no-overhead philosophy --- that is, if you love garbage collections, a C++ garbage collecting class is going to be more efficient and more tunable to your particular needs. Why not use that if the result is more efficient?
As you point out, the tools to find memory leaks are quite mature and plentiful. The tools to avoid them, patterns of development, are equally mature. I think it's useful to learn them. Running away from them cannot succeed, as the issues are those of basic logical style. Open paren, close paren. Open bracket, close bracket. Allocate, Free, New, delete. This bookending of control is ubiquitous. When you allocate something, you have to free it. In java this means setting the reference to null, not thinking about it is a recipe for disaster.
It's been a long time since I've blown past the end of an array is use the standard vector class now.
.... just when I was looking for my Trolltech shares...
I think programmers are getting a bet self indulgent. Two languages are equivalent in some respect if the syntax of the source is equivalent!?!?
How about comparing what they compile to? Just to humor the old-school?
... a couple registers in our 6502.
>(there's no such language as C/C++)
Yes there is. The C paradigm is totally legal in C++.
When you see a hello world benchmark and the code uses the stream classes, that C++.
When you see a hello world benchmark and the C++ sample used printf(..), that's C/C++.
well, you can mismanage memory. You can have too many references to an object and cause a "leak". Seen it.
You can horrendously mismanage memory in Java, and are more likely to because of all the people telling you that you don't have to "worry" anymore.
Hey, it was no worry, worrying about memory management is my job. And guess what, allocating and deallocating the bits is THE LEAST OF IT.
I agree with everything else you say, e.g., algorythm design is the most important source of optimization.
learn to use a pointer you vagrant!
If you get the reading from the Bible that you do, I fear you are creating a God to be what you want Him to be. But He never changes; and look what He did to the pre-flood world - he annihilated all but 8 people. He is just as upset about sin now as then, since He does not change.
but you suppose that you have a more direct access to what God is... reading the same book, but taking it more literally. But I have pointed out the errors and human editing of that book, so you can't really claim a more litteral reading is a more truthfull one. I'm afraid the God you are advocating is the one King James created.
Feel free to pray for me, but perhaps you should prey for the poor indian children that are going to hell because they never even heard of Jesus, they are more deserving. I've heard.