Of course I'm admitting my ignorance, that's my whole point. To know the absolute truth, you first have to prove that such a thing exists. I would say that since it's impossible to prove that absolute truth exists, it's simpler to assume that it doesn't.
Firstly, there's no absolute truth outside of abstract though (mathematics, logic, philosophy). As soon as you start talking about nature, the "real" world, you instantly have a lack of data. Everything becomes a matter probability. As for the existence of God, statistically the probability is zero, but with a finite margin of error. I liken the existence of God to the health of Schrodinger's cat. You don't know he exists until you die.
If you die and discover that God does exist, can you be certain that he existed before you died?
OOP concepts in C++ are pretty simple really. if you're used to thinking in ASM it's pretty simple to extend it to C++
struct - just a definition of a list of offsets and sizes from an address.
class - a struct that can contain methods. (of course, structs in C++ can contain methods, too. I'm just using this definition to separate C from C++)
object - some memory laid out according to the definition of a class.
function - (as in C) just the address of some code.
method - same as a function, but the syntax is different: the first parameter, this, is moved outside the argument list: ptr->method(...) instead of method(ptr,...), and the members of 'this' are in scope within the method.
virtual method - a function pointer (indirect call). each class has its own table of function pointers (vtable), one for each virtual method, and each object contains a hidden pointer to its class' vtable. effectively: ptr->_vtable[method_index](...)
inheritance - adding new methods/members to another class. the new class' vtable is the same as the old one, but with overriden methods' vtable entries now pointing to the new methods, and all other new virtual methods' entries tacked on the end.
The bottom line is that if you want a way to organise tables of function pointers, using classes is probably the easiest way to do it.
The key concept in C++ OOP is that you can have two pointers of the same type that can point to objects that have different vtables. You can treat them as if they were the same type of thing but some of their methods may be different.
Re:Strange, I've been arguing about this all day .
on
Why Java Won't Have Macros
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For the same reason the following:
typedef int DWORD
typedef char* LPSTR
(yes, burn in hell Microsoft)
are bad
The reason those typedefs are good is that they insulate the programmer from the compiler that they're using.
Quickly now, can you tell me if 'char' is signed or unsigned by default on your C++ compiler? Or how long is an 'int'?
It's a simple matter to change those definitions in a single place, but if you change compiler you may have to refactor a whole lot of your code to keep it compatible. Using the typedefs you will always know that a DWORD is an unsigned 4-byte value and a LPSTR is a pointer to signed bytes.
Actually, Microsoft has several kinds of clustering technologies. There's the failover clustering that you mentioned that's built into Windows Advanced Server and SQL Server.
There's also SQL Server's Active/Active clustering which, in conjuntion with Patitioned Views, allows you to split tables (and queries) between multiple machines. The number of machines is limited, though, but it works pretty well for static data.
There's also the Component Load Balancing feature of Application Center which allows you to load-balance the activation of COM+ components distributed among a cluster of machines. I've never worked with a Linux Beowulf cluster, but AC provides rolling distribution and monitoring tools as well, so I guess it's the same idea.
Well, I'm sory to prove you wronge yet again, but when I was working at Microsoft I saw plenty of feature requests and bugs that were passed to us from our product team's PSS liason via just such a page (it was a different page, but the same concept). The feature requests were considered toward the beginning of the product schedule, and the bugs were continuously triaged and entered into the bug database and fixed according to their assigned priority.
I said nothing about the number of people using the system. I only mentioned the number of people looking for bugs. So, once again, what you said has absolutely no relevance to the discussion.
d
z/dt = -sin(t) + icos(t)
= i(cos(t) + isin(t))
= iz
dz = iz dt
dz/z = idt
Integrate:
Integral (d
z/z) = Integral (idt)
ln z = it
Exponentiate:
z = Exp (it)
But you missed my point. PI appears in the period of this equation because the complex plane is isomorphic to R2.
Try, for example drawing a circle on the surface of a sphere. The circumference of the circle will always be less than 2*PI*the distance to at least one of the points on the surface equidistant from the points on that circle (every circle on a sphere has two 'centers').
You're right, I'm sure such changes would have drastic effects on the type of universe inside the simulation. Mathematics would remain the same, but Physics would be different (maybe just a hint of green?). But if you were born in such an environment (assuming, of course, you could be), life wouldn't seem so strange subjectively. Although, to an observer living in a "universe" with different rules that environment might seem quite strange. There's no real reason why the universe inside the Matrix looked somewhat like the world outside (except it's just cheaper to film it that way).
Mouse's comments at the dinner table addressed this directly.
how very euclidean of you. there are plenty of 2D geometries where the circumference of a locus equidistant from a point is not 2PI times that distance.
Surely the results of such experiments could be faked. For example, it could be simple to build a 'matrix' where the value of PI could be, say, 5, or where Newton was correct and light permeated space the instant it was emitted and mass had not effect on time.
Hell, there are limits to our own understanding of both the extremely small and the extremely large. What if those limits are not that far from the limits of our "simulation"? How would you tell? Build bigger accelerators/telescopes? How big would they need to be?
Our knowledge of "what should be" is based purely on obseravtion. We're always testing the boundaries of our knowledge. But who's to say that when we delve deeper into the depths of the cosmos we won't discover a message:
"game over, insert coins to play again."
or
"Hi, this is God, I'm not in right now, please leave a message."
They probably haven't done it because they don't think it's important enough. It's not like they don't have a whole tone of other shit to fix in IE.
If you want them to implement this, then I suggest you ask them to.
Re:Sounds like what C# has that makes it better...
on
Preview of Java 1.5
·
· Score: 1
I don't think it really has anything to do with what the language "needs". It has more to do with what the programmers want. I mean, if we didn't want these features that made programming easier, we'd all be coding in rule 110.
Re:I'll care when native compilers become the norm
on
Preview of Java 1.5
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Give me a native optimizing compiler and I just might reconsider.
hotspot is a native optimizing (JIT) compiler. It takes Java bytecode as its input and generates optimized native code. Try disassembling some of the code it generates some time, it does a remarkably good job.
Indeed, but be careful not to extend this argument to imply that the number of bugs that exist in a system is proportional to the number of bugs that are found in a system over a given time. There are many other factors, not least of which is the number of people looking for those bugs.
Actually, it is. In guaging the legality of tools such as this you'll find that the term "substantial noninfringing use" is used quite alot. The point being that while screwdrivers, crowbars, etc. are more often used for legal means than otherwise, making the same case for DeCSS would be difficult.
For example, here's a quite from Judge Marilyn Hall Patel's ruling on the Napster case:
Fair use and substantial noninfringing use arguments are in fact affirmative defenses, and defendant, as I said, has the burden of showing that a given use constitutes a fair use.
The court finds that...the potential noninfringing uses of the Napster service are minimal. Some of them seem to be thought of them afterward and after this litigation started; but the substantial or commercially significant use of the service was and continues to be copying popular music, most of which is copyrighted and for which no authorization has been obtained.
Well, I use it to export NFS shares and it works just fine. I don't use the source code compatibility stuff or the tools - you're right they're half-assed - I use cygwin and the ActiveState stuff instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course I'm admitting my ignorance, that's my whole point. To know the absolute truth, you first have to prove that such a thing exists. I would say that since it's impossible to prove that absolute truth exists, it's simpler to assume that it doesn't.
as for LPSTR, the problem with writing "char *" is that you don't necessarily know whether or not the chars being pointed to are signed.
If you die and discover that God does exist, can you be certain that he existed before you died?
-
struct - just a definition of a list of offsets and sizes from an address.
-
class - a struct that can contain methods. (of course, structs in C++ can contain methods, too. I'm just using this definition to separate C from C++)
-
object - some memory laid out according to the definition of a class.
-
function - (as in C) just the address of some code.
-
method - same as a function, but the syntax is different: the first parameter, this, is moved outside the argument list: ptr->method(...) instead of method(ptr,...), and the members of 'this' are in scope within the method.
-
virtual method - a function pointer (indirect call). each class has its own table of function pointers (vtable), one for each virtual method, and each object contains a hidden pointer to its class' vtable. effectively: ptr->_vtable[method_index](...)
-
inheritance - adding new methods/members to another class. the new class' vtable is the same as the old one, but with overriden methods' vtable entries now pointing to the new methods, and all other new virtual methods' entries tacked on the end.
The bottom line is that if you want a way to organise tables of function pointers, using classes is probably the easiest way to do it.The key concept in C++ OOP is that you can have two pointers of the same type that can point to objects that have different vtables. You can treat them as if they were the same type of thing but some of their methods may be different.
Quickly now, can you tell me if 'char' is signed or unsigned by default on your C++ compiler? Or how long is an 'int'?
It's a simple matter to change those definitions in a single place, but if you change compiler you may have to refactor a whole lot of your code to keep it compatible. Using the typedefs you will always know that a DWORD is an unsigned 4-byte value and a LPSTR is a pointer to signed bytes.
For an excellent example of the power of the C preprocessor and some of its more advanced usage see The Boost Library Preprocessor Subset for C/C++.
A week for a LucasFilm DVD? You're kidding, right?
You know nothing of what you speak. You have nothing to say for yourself. You are pathetic.
Takes one to know one, I guess....
Again, it's funny how wrong you are.
There's also SQL Server's Active/Active clustering which, in conjuntion with Patitioned Views, allows you to split tables (and queries) between multiple machines. The number of machines is limited, though, but it works pretty well for static data.
There's also the Component Load Balancing feature of Application Center which allows you to load-balance the activation of COM+ components distributed among a cluster of machines. I've never worked with a Linux Beowulf cluster, but AC provides rolling distribution and monitoring tools as well, so I guess it's the same idea.
you are the lamest of trolls.
Yeah, and while you're at it, you can bitch directly to the IE PSS team here.
I said nothing about the number of people using the system. I only mentioned the number of people looking for bugs. So, once again, what you said has absolutely no relevance to the discussion.
Try, for example drawing a circle on the surface of a sphere. The circumference of the circle will always be less than 2*PI*the distance to at least one of the points on the surface equidistant from the points on that circle (every circle on a sphere has two 'centers').
Mouse's comments at the dinner table addressed this directly.
how very euclidean of you. there are plenty of 2D geometries where the circumference of a locus equidistant from a point is not 2PI times that distance.
Hell, there are limits to our own understanding of both the extremely small and the extremely large. What if those limits are not that far from the limits of our "simulation"? How would you tell? Build bigger accelerators/telescopes? How big would they need to be?
Our knowledge of "what should be" is based purely on obseravtion. We're always testing the boundaries of our knowledge. But who's to say that when we delve deeper into the depths of the cosmos we won't discover a message:
orIf you want them to implement this, then I suggest you ask them to.
I don't think it really has anything to do with what the language "needs". It has more to do with what the programmers want. I mean, if we didn't want these features that made programming easier, we'd all be coding in rule 110.
Indeed, but be careful not to extend this argument to imply that the number of bugs that exist in a system is proportional to the number of bugs that are found in a system over a given time. There are many other factors, not least of which is the number of people looking for those bugs.
For example, here's a quite from Judge Marilyn Hall Patel's ruling on the Napster case:
IANALProabably because it includes (but is not limited to, as one comment here impled) a set of GPL tools compiled to run under the Interix susbsystem.
Well, I use it to export NFS shares and it works just fine. I don't use the source code compatibility stuff or the tools - you're right they're half-assed - I use cygwin and the ActiveState stuff instead.