You're completely off base. Code generation is a vital productivity tool. Properly applied, it lets you produce code quicker and with less defects. If you're developing a large scale project and are not using various code generators to ease your job in repetitive tasks, you're doing it wrong. Qt's use of moc is exactly what code generators are supposed to be used for. I lament that they haven't taken it far enough, in fact.
That's silly. As long as the code doesn't invoke undefined or implementation-defined behavior, you can be exactly sure what the compiler can and cannot do, modulo implementation bugs. If you're invoking undefined behavior, you can argue all you want, because for all I know you'll be getting different assembly output every time you compile the thing, and it's your own fault. C++ admittedly lacks in full identification and diagnostics of undefined behavior, so a bit too much checking is still left in programmer's hands. That's my only lament with C++. Otherwise it's a cool language.
The C++ that was available during NT kernel's design is quite literally a different programming language than modern C++, or even C++98. C++ is an excellent choice for an OS kernel.
C++ is a fairly modern, high-level language where it's fairly easy to produce type-safe, grounds-up designs that use zero unsafe C features. And if you must call into C or precambrian C++, you can wrap those in type- and otherwise safe wrappers.
The "esoteric" things in C++ are precisely the things that let you use it as a high level language, and not as Java or C. C++ offers a higher level of abstraction than Java, at least since the arrival of C++11. About the only mainstream feature still absent from C++ is free-form introspection. It's already possible to use template machinery to create types with full introspection, but any such approach doesn't apply to the types created manually using plain C++ syntax. The other feature is imperative compile-time programming, also known as LISP macros, but then only LISP really has those and nothing else IIRC.
It's not mind boggling if you understand the syntax of C. It so happens that many people program in C for years without having a solid understanding of what it is that they are doing. I'd almost say that if you consider yourself "the best" in C, you should be able to come up with a mostly standards-compliant parser for it in a couple of days, doing it mostly from memory, and certainly writing up a parser for a subpart of the language, like type expressions, should take a couple hours at most. Otherwise I'd find it a hard sell to consider someone a top-notch C person. Good - perhaps, but not top-notch.
Frankly said, I think that this is rather overstating things. Modern C++ has plenty of idioms that you should use first, without attempting to come up with your revolutionary redesigns of a common wooden wheel. Effective C++ and Modern Effective C++ are required reading, as well as Strostrup's most recent (at any time) edition of The C++ Programming Language. Also Exceptional C++, and Modern C++ Design. I can't help but mention the interview with Alex Stepanov, where he explains the mathematical basis for STL (You thought that software engineering requires no abstract, higher non-CSy math? Think again!)
C++ is a big language, and people who know their craft actually do know all of its features, and can probably point to relevant sections in the standard when they talk about things. I'd say: meh, pebkac.
As someone who has attempted suicide and just barely made it, I think that the so-called mental health experts are a bit stuck up in seeing things from nobody's perspective but theirs. The freedom to lead your way the way you choose to must include ending your own life at any time of your choosing. It is true that quite often people who attempted suicide are happy with making it out alive, and being able to live their lives. I certainly am!! On the other hand, the thought that some "expert" who is not in my frame of mind would have the ability to, essentially, take over my ability to take my life - is downright scary. Just because I'm happy with the life I have now doesn't mean that I'd be happy about someone preventing me from attempting to take my life when I did so. Two decades later, I'd consider it a gross invasion of privacy, and a horrific, slippery slope takeover of basic human liberty.
There is a very fine line between truly helping someone, and "helping" someone by - as you unashamedly admit - putting someone else's feelings over your own. Yes, as a society we have an obligation to give as much help as we can, but that help IMHO should not extend to overriding the decision of someone who wishes to take their life away. I find it, actually, completely incomprehensible that people think that preservation of human life over all else should be forced down everyone's throat. I also find it not all that clear that suicidal thoughts should be treated like a malaise in all cases. My attempt at my own life made me into a person that I am now, and who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say that I'd be better off not having tried it? It's quite possible the worst case of "what if" imaginable, because you're not merely hypothesizing, you intend to take action.
The implication that all people with suicidal thoughts have a "very real chance" of taking down someone else is just an icing on the cake. You're nuts. I'm not a murderer, and can't imagine how attempting to take my own life would have ever made me take the life of someone else while doing so - other than indirectly, say by someone close to me dying of a stress-induced heart attack. I can't imagine that any sort of a majority, or even a significant minority of people who attempt a suicide are murderers and would take down others with them - not unless they were murderers to begin with, and suicial thoughts were just an enabler, like alcohol or drugs would be for others.
They do not have a point. Suppose that the GPS was in civilian control. It still could be used for drones and nuclear warheads. Basically nobody asks these people the most basic question of all: suppose you have your way, what would be acceptable to you? The unfortunate answer is: nothing is ever acceptable to those nutjobs. Really, that's what makes them the nutjobs that they are. As long as you have a satellite-based global positioning system, it's equally available to anyone, everywhere, for whatever purpose. That's the basic premise of the thing. There's no way, technically or otherwise, to regulate its use. What those nutjobs want is a pipe dream.
That's the thing though - you're punishing them for what they say, and I think that's fundamentally wrong here. I basically say that unless libel laws apply, it's nobody's business what those fucktards publicly write on Twitter. It makes them look vile and stupid, but IMHO the buck stops there.
Sure you have the freedom to fire over anything in most circumstances, but that doesn't mean that you should.
Well, what the mob is making up amounts to law, because there are real-life consequences of it.
I don't even think that there are any "people like this" in our society. The remarks, while public and vile, are just that. I don't think it's any larger characterization of those people's character. Sure, neither you or me would ever post anything like that, not even anonymously I'm sure, but I'd be very careful with turning those identified into something much worse than they are. Some people do extremely stupid shit, given (im)proper circumstances - things that perhaps they'd never usually do.
I've heard worse first-hand and frankly said it takes some rationality to separate the wheat form the chaff. It's bad, but internet trolling almost always degenerates downwards, it goes from bad to worse to mind-bogglingly disgusting. It's not about ignoring the trolls, the trolls should be scolded, but arbitrary mob justice isn't the answer.
"what these idiots were doing was trivial or harmless"
I think it takes an adult to realize that those idiots are, in fact, doing trivial and harmless things. It's internet grandstanding. Is that so hard to see? Yeah, the people who posted these comments are dicks, we know that. And that's all there's to it.
I would approach any statements that those guys threatened anyone with anything with due caution. You're interpreting their writing in a particular way, a way that is on its face unwarranted and IMHO childish. Not everything is a threat just because it's worded so. There's no reason to believe there's some big conspiracy out there to rape this pitcher's daughter - to think so is rather juvenile and thoughtless. The people who posted those vile remarks have done a stupid thing, but those are "threats" just as "my dick is the biggest one" locker room talk would be considered grounds to launch a large study into the "obviously" skewed distribution of dick sizes.
There is something seriously wrong with these men, but it doesn't warrant the response it got, I don't think - mainly because the "threats" aren't, and there is no law that makes what they've done illegal. And at this point the mob is just making up the laws as they go.
The real questio is: does it warrant any repercussions? What those fuckers said amounts to juvenile grandstanding and "my cock is bigger than your cock" talk. Yeah, it's hurtful, but this isn't Germany - our legal system's approach to freedom of speech is fundamentally different.
I'm really on the fence when it comes to whether freedom of speech shoudn't win here. I find all of the comments to be unbelieveable: whoever says it has their mouth full of shit, but is unable to follow on any of it. Grandstanding at its worst. She won't get raped by those clowns, those are not credible threats of violence. The comments are vile, but the outrage should stop at being just outrage. On what grounds should we fire these guys etc.? Certainly there is no law that would require it, so who are we to make up laws on the spot? This reeks of witch trials not because of whether there are any real witches out there, but because the response is driven by mass outrage and is entirely arbitrary and whimsical.
GitLab and GitHub are really vastly different at the most basic level: GitLab is a software product. GitHub is a service. You can't install github on your server. I'm very happy that gitorious is gone, though. It always felt clunky and second-rate, for some reason. Qt on GitLab is great news.
Russia is quite like the U.S. when it comes to expanse of the land. There's plenty of superbly beautiful and unspoiled areas in Russia, if that's your thing. If remote work was feasible, he could live in the middle of nowhere just as well as in the middle of a big city. I would not generalize Russia to be a shithole. If you're on the wrong footing with the authorities, you'll fare equally poorly in any "civilized" country.
Frankly said, I'm at this point just tired of people who can't set up their build tools to automate common tasks, and who think that code generation is some disease that has to be valiantly fought, because obviously if you call anything besides the compiler it's too complificated.
Look, you're wasting lots of your time by not using code generators. And I do mean lots and lots. You even publicly and proudly admit to it. In any project of considerable size, you'll be using dozens of tools to produce the final executable, the documentation, etc., so you just make yourself look very silly.
If you're whipping up something quick and dirty in Qt, you don't care about any code generators that Qt internally requires. A four liner.pro file does the job, and Qt Creator sets everything up for you anyway. For more complex projects it's your pick between qmake+make and cmake, but both are fully supported.
Given that from 10.9 onwards you have IP over Thunderbolt, I don't think you need Infiniband anymore. You can run XSan over Thunderbolt just fine, with a bunch of macs in a mesh network. All you need is thunderbolt cables, no other hardware needed.
Agreed: Arduino is really just a packaging for a common Atmel microcontroller, with a bootloader, and a development environment that tries to pretend it's not C++. Anyone who actually knows how to program microcontrollers doesn't specifically care for an Arduino, they'll use one the the bajillion Atmel parts that are exactly fit for the job, use Atmel Studio to develop and debug, and a proper tool to connect to the chip. Atmel has such a variety of parts available that constraining yourself to a limited sub-family of parts is just going full retard about it.
Arduino is a platform designed for hobbyists. Asking for an "experience" with it, when looking for engineering talent, is almost insulting. Any EE worth their salt will understand what the platform is good for and will be able to leverage it where it makes sense. And about the only situation it makes sense, in a commercial product, is when you specifically want to have very easy firmware tweakability using simple development tools. Basically if you're targeting people who get confused by all the buttons in a full-blown IDE.
I can't agree more. If you really need external sensors, put them in simple $0.50 off-the-shelf enclosures with a couple minutes of kitchen table machining done to adapt them to your application. Learn how to cleanly superglue lenses/windows etc. Repurpose other off-the-shelf parts - say use IR motion sensor lenses for your trigger lenses, if you need a wide-field Fresnel sort of an IR lens. Reuse $1.00 off-the-shelf cables that you can buy in bulk on eBay to connect sensors to the main unit. If they break, you can even afford a warranty replacement with $1 for shipping via USPS, duh.
Again, use off-the-shelf enclosure, get a custom keyboard/label combo, but for crying out loud, don't go into making full custom plastic molds! And have some in-house talent to at least run the engineering team. I do agree that 3-4 people should have had it wrapped up in 6 months. Geez.
Slashdot Mirror
You're completely off base. Code generation is a vital productivity tool. Properly applied, it lets you produce code quicker and with less defects. If you're developing a large scale project and are not using various code generators to ease your job in repetitive tasks, you're doing it wrong. Qt's use of moc is exactly what code generators are supposed to be used for. I lament that they haven't taken it far enough, in fact.
That's silly. As long as the code doesn't invoke undefined or implementation-defined behavior, you can be exactly sure what the compiler can and cannot do, modulo implementation bugs. If you're invoking undefined behavior, you can argue all you want, because for all I know you'll be getting different assembly output every time you compile the thing, and it's your own fault. C++ admittedly lacks in full identification and diagnostics of undefined behavior, so a bit too much checking is still left in programmer's hands. That's my only lament with C++. Otherwise it's a cool language.
The C++ that was available during NT kernel's design is quite literally a different programming language than modern C++, or even C++98. C++ is an excellent choice for an OS kernel.
C++ is a fairly modern, high-level language where it's fairly easy to produce type-safe, grounds-up designs that use zero unsafe C features. And if you must call into C or precambrian C++, you can wrap those in type- and otherwise safe wrappers.
The "esoteric" things in C++ are precisely the things that let you use it as a high level language, and not as Java or C. C++ offers a higher level of abstraction than Java, at least since the arrival of C++11. About the only mainstream feature still absent from C++ is free-form introspection. It's already possible to use template machinery to create types with full introspection, but any such approach doesn't apply to the types created manually using plain C++ syntax. The other feature is imperative compile-time programming, also known as LISP macros, but then only LISP really has those and nothing else IIRC.
It's not mind boggling if you understand the syntax of C. It so happens that many people program in C for years without having a solid understanding of what it is that they are doing. I'd almost say that if you consider yourself "the best" in C, you should be able to come up with a mostly standards-compliant parser for it in a couple of days, doing it mostly from memory, and certainly writing up a parser for a subpart of the language, like type expressions, should take a couple hours at most. Otherwise I'd find it a hard sell to consider someone a top-notch C person. Good - perhaps, but not top-notch.
Frankly said, I think that this is rather overstating things. Modern C++ has plenty of idioms that you should use first, without attempting to come up with your revolutionary redesigns of a common wooden wheel. Effective C++ and Modern Effective C++ are required reading, as well as Strostrup's most recent (at any time) edition of The C++ Programming Language. Also Exceptional C++, and Modern C++ Design. I can't help but mention the interview with Alex Stepanov, where he explains the mathematical basis for STL (You thought that software engineering requires no abstract, higher non-CSy math? Think again!)
C++ is a big language, and people who know their craft actually do know all of its features, and can probably point to relevant sections in the standard when they talk about things. I'd say: meh, pebkac.
Ah, so there are people out there who get it! Thank you for a voice of reason in this "I know better than you what's good for you" insanity.
As someone who has attempted suicide and just barely made it, I think that the so-called mental health experts are a bit stuck up in seeing things from nobody's perspective but theirs. The freedom to lead your way the way you choose to must include ending your own life at any time of your choosing. It is true that quite often people who attempted suicide are happy with making it out alive, and being able to live their lives. I certainly am!! On the other hand, the thought that some "expert" who is not in my frame of mind would have the ability to, essentially, take over my ability to take my life - is downright scary. Just because I'm happy with the life I have now doesn't mean that I'd be happy about someone preventing me from attempting to take my life when I did so. Two decades later, I'd consider it a gross invasion of privacy, and a horrific, slippery slope takeover of basic human liberty.
There is a very fine line between truly helping someone, and "helping" someone by - as you unashamedly admit - putting someone else's feelings over your own. Yes, as a society we have an obligation to give as much help as we can, but that help IMHO should not extend to overriding the decision of someone who wishes to take their life away. I find it, actually, completely incomprehensible that people think that preservation of human life over all else should be forced down everyone's throat. I also find it not all that clear that suicidal thoughts should be treated like a malaise in all cases. My attempt at my own life made me into a person that I am now, and who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say that I'd be better off not having tried it? It's quite possible the worst case of "what if" imaginable, because you're not merely hypothesizing, you intend to take action.
The implication that all people with suicidal thoughts have a "very real chance" of taking down someone else is just an icing on the cake. You're nuts. I'm not a murderer, and can't imagine how attempting to take my own life would have ever made me take the life of someone else while doing so - other than indirectly, say by someone close to me dying of a stress-induced heart attack. I can't imagine that any sort of a majority, or even a significant minority of people who attempt a suicide are murderers and would take down others with them - not unless they were murderers to begin with, and suicial thoughts were just an enabler, like alcohol or drugs would be for others.
TL;DR: You're nuts, you really are.
USPS also scans every mailpiece. Seriously, they do, and have been doing for almost two decades.
They do not have a point. Suppose that the GPS was in civilian control. It still could be used for drones and nuclear warheads. Basically nobody asks these people the most basic question of all: suppose you have your way, what would be acceptable to you? The unfortunate answer is: nothing is ever acceptable to those nutjobs. Really, that's what makes them the nutjobs that they are. As long as you have a satellite-based global positioning system, it's equally available to anyone, everywhere, for whatever purpose. That's the basic premise of the thing. There's no way, technically or otherwise, to regulate its use. What those nutjobs want is a pipe dream.
That's the thing though - you're punishing them for what they say, and I think that's fundamentally wrong here. I basically say that unless libel laws apply, it's nobody's business what those fucktards publicly write on Twitter. It makes them look vile and stupid, but IMHO the buck stops there.
Sure you have the freedom to fire over anything in most circumstances, but that doesn't mean that you should.
Well, what the mob is making up amounts to law, because there are real-life consequences of it.
I don't even think that there are any "people like this" in our society. The remarks, while public and vile, are just that. I don't think it's any larger characterization of those people's character. Sure, neither you or me would ever post anything like that, not even anonymously I'm sure, but I'd be very careful with turning those identified into something much worse than they are. Some people do extremely stupid shit, given (im)proper circumstances - things that perhaps they'd never usually do.
Sure, the state can't, but I'm saying that public opinion shouldn't either, because it amounts to kangaroo courts.
I've heard worse first-hand and frankly said it takes some rationality to separate the wheat form the chaff. It's bad, but internet trolling almost always degenerates downwards, it goes from bad to worse to mind-bogglingly disgusting. It's not about ignoring the trolls, the trolls should be scolded, but arbitrary mob justice isn't the answer.
"what these idiots were doing was trivial or harmless"
I think it takes an adult to realize that those idiots are, in fact, doing trivial and harmless things. It's internet grandstanding. Is that so hard to see? Yeah, the people who posted these comments are dicks, we know that. And that's all there's to it.
I would approach any statements that those guys threatened anyone with anything with due caution. You're interpreting their writing in a particular way, a way that is on its face unwarranted and IMHO childish. Not everything is a threat just because it's worded so. There's no reason to believe there's some big conspiracy out there to rape this pitcher's daughter - to think so is rather juvenile and thoughtless. The people who posted those vile remarks have done a stupid thing, but those are "threats" just as "my dick is the biggest one" locker room talk would be considered grounds to launch a large study into the "obviously" skewed distribution of dick sizes.
There is something seriously wrong with these men, but it doesn't warrant the response it got, I don't think - mainly because the "threats" aren't, and there is no law that makes what they've done illegal. And at this point the mob is just making up the laws as they go.
The real questio is: does it warrant any repercussions? What those fuckers said amounts to juvenile grandstanding and "my cock is bigger than your cock" talk. Yeah, it's hurtful, but this isn't Germany - our legal system's approach to freedom of speech is fundamentally different.
I'm really on the fence when it comes to whether freedom of speech shoudn't win here. I find all of the comments to be unbelieveable: whoever says it has their mouth full of shit, but is unable to follow on any of it. Grandstanding at its worst. She won't get raped by those clowns, those are not credible threats of violence. The comments are vile, but the outrage should stop at being just outrage. On what grounds should we fire these guys etc.? Certainly there is no law that would require it, so who are we to make up laws on the spot? This reeks of witch trials not because of whether there are any real witches out there, but because the response is driven by mass outrage and is entirely arbitrary and whimsical.
Still beats the crap out of gitweb, which is the default "alternative".
GitLab and GitHub are really vastly different at the most basic level: GitLab is a software product. GitHub is a service. You can't install github on your server. I'm very happy that gitorious is gone, though. It always felt clunky and second-rate, for some reason. Qt on GitLab is great news.
Russia is quite like the U.S. when it comes to expanse of the land. There's plenty of superbly beautiful and unspoiled areas in Russia, if that's your thing. If remote work was feasible, he could live in the middle of nowhere just as well as in the middle of a big city. I would not generalize Russia to be a shithole. If you're on the wrong footing with the authorities, you'll fare equally poorly in any "civilized" country.
Frankly said, I'm at this point just tired of people who can't set up their build tools to automate common tasks, and who think that code generation is some disease that has to be valiantly fought, because obviously if you call anything besides the compiler it's too complificated.
Look, you're wasting lots of your time by not using code generators. And I do mean lots and lots. You even publicly and proudly admit to it. In any project of considerable size, you'll be using dozens of tools to produce the final executable, the documentation, etc., so you just make yourself look very silly.
If you're whipping up something quick and dirty in Qt, you don't care about any code generators that Qt internally requires. A four liner .pro file does the job, and Qt Creator sets everything up for you anyway. For more complex projects it's your pick between qmake+make and cmake, but both are fully supported.
Your rant sounds silly.
Given that from 10.9 onwards you have IP over Thunderbolt, I don't think you need Infiniband anymore. You can run XSan over Thunderbolt just fine, with a bunch of macs in a mesh network. All you need is thunderbolt cables, no other hardware needed.
Agreed: Arduino is really just a packaging for a common Atmel microcontroller, with a bootloader, and a development environment that tries to pretend it's not C++. Anyone who actually knows how to program microcontrollers doesn't specifically care for an Arduino, they'll use one the the bajillion Atmel parts that are exactly fit for the job, use Atmel Studio to develop and debug, and a proper tool to connect to the chip. Atmel has such a variety of parts available that constraining yourself to a limited sub-family of parts is just going full retard about it.
Arduino is a platform designed for hobbyists. Asking for an "experience" with it, when looking for engineering talent, is almost insulting. Any EE worth their salt will understand what the platform is good for and will be able to leverage it where it makes sense. And about the only situation it makes sense, in a commercial product, is when you specifically want to have very easy firmware tweakability using simple development tools. Basically if you're targeting people who get confused by all the buttons in a full-blown IDE.
I can't agree more. If you really need external sensors, put them in simple $0.50 off-the-shelf enclosures with a couple minutes of kitchen table machining done to adapt them to your application. Learn how to cleanly superglue lenses/windows etc. Repurpose other off-the-shelf parts - say use IR motion sensor lenses for your trigger lenses, if you need a wide-field Fresnel sort of an IR lens. Reuse $1.00 off-the-shelf cables that you can buy in bulk on eBay to connect sensors to the main unit. If they break, you can even afford a warranty replacement with $1 for shipping via USPS, duh.
Again, use off-the-shelf enclosure, get a custom keyboard/label combo, but for crying out loud, don't go into making full custom plastic molds! And have some in-house talent to at least run the engineering team. I do agree that 3-4 people should have had it wrapped up in 6 months. Geez.