Given the CygWin environment, it should be at least *possible* to port it.
Nope, not at all. Samba is not just a Posix application, but a pretty platform dependent _Unix_ application. Besides, there is no real way to mount file systems under Windows since there kernel is all whacko.
Yeah, IE has this for a while, OE and FrontPage Express can be downloaded with IE, or they can be skipped. OE is my mail client of choice, with very nice searching and filtering capabilities, and any serious webdev is not going to use something that came with their broswer to create sites.
FrontPage is not free though. I don't care about serious web development. There are many circumstances where it is necessary for a real programmer (note: web page designer are not programmers) to generate HTML for various reasons or another. It's nice to have a WYSIWYG editor that is low bloat, and that allows for complete extension via source modification.
Yeah, and IE has customizeable sidebars as well, including sites like Google (actually a top bar) MSNBC.
These things require programming extensions though. That is insecure and generally not cool. The Mozilla sidebar is based on XUL (which is an HTML-like language) so its pretty safe to install sidebars from any site.
I only reason most folks use IE is because its already there. You would be making the same argument if IE had better features than Mozilla but Mozilla was already installed. Simply put, it's laziness. I don't care if you use it or not, but don't knock it and give people a false impression of it's quality.
If you felt a need to reply, you should of simply said, "I use IE because I'm too lazy to download Mozilla. Mozilla does have better features, but I'm just lazy."
Funny thing is that music is for the most part subjective. Country music is by far the most popular form of music. At any rate, one could not even come close to objectively stating that country music is better than say rock (whereas one may be able to make an argue for classical music being better than either of the two).
On the other hand, I think one can make a very good objective argument as to why Java is a much worse language than say C++. So, while I'd be inclined to agree with your analogy (if you actually said it right, since I hate both Java and country music), it doesn't really work as an analogy.
1) Tabbed browsing - it's worth all the hype it receives. Mozilla can be configured such that almost any action will just generate a new tab. I middle click on a link, new tab. If a link has a _TOP target, new tag. Tabs are much easier to navigate especially if your like me and tend to have 15 web pages open at once.
2) Scripting security customization. Almost all the annoying aspects of JavaScript can be individually blocked with Mozilla. This includes disabling pop-up ads or pop-under ads or those stupid things that resize your window. The nice thing is that Mozilla is smart enough to differentiate between an action that occurs onLoad or something verses one where you actually click a link.
3) Sidebar. The mozilla sidebar is pretty neat for two reasons. On the one hand, it provides easy access to things like bookmarks, history, and searching. On the other hand though, the sidebar is built on Mozillas XUL technology such that any webpage can install a new sidebar (well, you have to allow the page to install the sidebar). Freshmeat, CNN, and a few other sites have great sidebars that provide headlines and search facilities (in a compact, easy to use manner).
4) Integrated everything. Mozilla has a built in mail client, WYSIWYG editor, and address book. The WYSIWYG editor doesn't get the attention it deserves. Its really evolved from the horrible Composer of Netscape fame into something that rivals any editor that I've ever used. The mail client is really nice too with all sorts of searching and filtering capabilities that I am not aware of in Outlook (although I only use Outlook at work).
A lot of these things are just showing up in the newer releases (in a usable state at least). When the 1.0 milestone is released, I would really recommend checking it out. The release candidates so far definitely have changed the way I use the internet.
But I can still extract a useful signal from my system by applying the right filter.
But that is because part of the system isn't chaotic. This argument relies on the assumption that part of the climate system is not chaotic. The article points out things like El Nino as an example of such parts of the system that may exhibit predictability but even El Nino is not predictable in any way other than making an educated guess. It also is still dependent on localized prediction.
This experiment is trying to make a prediction 100 ahead in a system. Extrapolating the data from 50 years doesn't seem to make any sense because of the fact that the system is nonlinear to begin with and therefore doesn't lend itself to extrapolation.
So we can't just call ourselves Professional Engineers upon graduation, it takes about nine years.
Which is good in my book. That makes the title actually have meaning. In my mind, a Professional Engineer under that criteria is just as much a professional as a doctor or lawyer.
What bothers me the most is how they're charging for the extension. Sure have criteria, that's fine and dandy, but to charge like that?
Well, I actually view it more as cost-of-entry issue than a profit issue. Right now, domain names have very nomal fees which lead any Joe-Blow to register all sorts of domains (heck, I even own a couple). Having a sizeable (but reasonable) cost makes people think twice before registering a domain. Someone has to be pretty serious to make such an investment since it's not just blowing $30 (which is less than one night at a strip club).
I actually think it's a pretty good idea. I personally would think more highly of a "professional" that used a.pro domain as opposed to a.ws domain since I would know that the.pro guy has something invested in it.
Oh come on now. I would give you credit if you spent more than 5 years in school, but I imagine you undertook a co-op program and just have a B.S.
Doctors and Lawyers have 8 year programs and such. I would agree with your argument if you had received a PhD and spent 9 years in school but you can't expect every guy who gets an engineering degree (and man, there's a lot of them) to be considered a "professional" in the good-ole-boy sense that they are pushing for.
Nobody is trying to predict the weather for the next 50 years, but rather the climate.
Which is still chaotic. See my response to the first reply in this thread.
It is certainly at least partially chaotic on smaller timescales, but there should be trends that are more or less predictable on medium timescales (decades?).
No, not in a chaotic system. The most that could be accomplished is that a small sampling from today's climate could be used to understand what possible climatical period we are in but this is not what the experiment is attempting to do.
What that would entail is collecting data in order to generate an attractor for the system. This would involve calculating phase-space coordinates. This project is attempting to extrapolate a system that can't be extrapolated.
I won't get into a global warming debate here as that wasn't my intention behind my original post but please note that bad science hurts everyone on either side of the issue.
Or to put it in chaos terms, that the fractal dimension of the attractor for weather varies inversely with the sampling frequency.
But does any chaotic system exhibit such behavoir??` The mere fact that climate is study of average weather is irrelevant to the system at hand. It is equivalent to studying the trends of a graph between [0, 10] and [0, 10000]. A chaotic system will by definition exhibit divergence either way with a slight change in initial conditions.
As one poster has pointed out, weather is a chaotic system (and climate is also chaotic by definition).
Chaos is gravely misunderstood though so let me real quick through in my explaination for why this experiment will just generate FUD.
Chaotic equations are chaotic not because of the number of variables involved but because of the interdependency on themselves (each iteration requires the former iteration). This leads to extreme sensitive dependency on initial conditions (a.k.a. the Butterfly Effect). I should have probably emphasized the word extreme because even the slightly deviation will produce dramatically different results.
Even the best climate prediction algorithm would be crap if the initial condition was off by 10^(-20). The fact that we cannot measure temperatures exactly means that we could never feed a perfect initial condition.
Chaotic equations do have a given period before divergence gets extreme when initial conditions are altered. The original equations that Lorenz used (the pioneer of weather forecasting and the father of Chaos theory) showed divergence after about three days (which is why five-day forecasts still suck to this day).
I find it very hard to believe that these folks have developed an equation that doesn't show divergence for 100 years. Not to mention the fact that the number of initial conditions are much larger than the project makes them out to be.
Summary: Some PhD is looking for research money and figures that mixing "scientific" proof for global warming, chaos, and SETI-style distributed computer has to be good for a couple million at least.
First, we have to recognize exactly what this bill would do. It would quite simply regulate the ability of youngsters to obtain video games that contain the kind of thing we already don't let them observe in movies or talk about in public. That is, it doesn't take away any rights.
Hold your horses pal, because your a little mistaken here.
First of all, cable television is not regulated in any form whatsoever. Network television is regulated by the FCC because the airwaves are a public asset. There is nothing that prevents someone from producing a show with all sorts of curses and whatever else and distributing providing that it does not violate decency laws.
Movies are regulated voluntarily by the MPAA in order to avoid congressional battle. This was a concession made by the MPAA to remain in good standing with the public. There is a big difference between an industry regulating itself, and the government regulating an industry (especially since capitalism is what drove the regulation of movies).
Video games do not make use of public assets, and are still regulated by decency laws so additional regulation by the government constitutes censorship. The government has no right to meddle in the private affairs of its citizens especially when applying decency laws selectively to a particular medium.
People get confused when they talk about the first ammendment not being all-emcompassing. The first ammendment only doesn't apply if, and only if, the speach is likely to invoke action (shouting "fire" invokes violent action). I will not buy the regulation of video games unless the government can proof that video games directly result in violent actions.
In regards to minors not being covered by the constitution, this is also bullshit as proven in numerous Supreme Court cases involving the expression of free speech in schools. Minors are individuals and are entitled to all the rights in the constitution. It just so happens that certain things, like voting, have specific clauses limiting the right to citizens capable of rational thought.
By your argument, child slavery is legal since they aren't technically people.
And to go off a bit philosophically, the only corrupting influence is the lack of exposure to a particular idea. For more on the corruption of youth in society, I recommend Plato's dialog "Apology." Socrates makes a great argument regarding the falsity of so-called "corruptive" forces.
I wouldn't want my friend's three year old to see that.
Your friend's three year old goes to the store by himself with $50 to buy video games??? Gee, if a three year old is running around alone with $50, the last thing I think you having to worry about is him buying violent video games.
Your article leaves out one important piece of info, the rental cannot occur without parental consent.
But such "parental consent" already exists. It's called money!
A kid has no source of income other than the money his parent gives him (since one cannot really work legally until at 16). If a parent is providing money to a kid, then I, for one, would hope that the use of that money is already being monitored by the parent.
As for a kid who has a job, requiring parental consent is obsurd because if the person is competent enough to earn money, then he should be competent enough to spend that money too.
The reality is a law like this will not help parents as parents who already care about what their kids are playing already are monitoring what they play. Let's remember, most video games bought for kids are purchased by the parents (since kids can't really drive in a car to the local video game store).
What this does do though is put a crutch in the purchasing ability of a very important demograph (16-18) for the video game industry since it makes it significantly harder for these individuals to purchase a video game (not because they need parental permission, but what 16-18 year old wants to go shopping with their parents).
This is a political move to appease the Christian-right while also delivering a congressional-sized F.U. to the technology industry which congress just seems so keen on screwing now-a-days (I dunno, maybe geeks are attractive or something).
I personally don't play video games but I really hate to see congress abuse their powers like this.
According to the new legislation, that classifies Outlook as an electronic terrorism program.
Screw terrorism, if it could simply be proven that MS shipped Outlook with the knowledge that it had many security flaws, they could definitely be hit with some criminal charges (although the whole "AS IS" complicates it a bit).
All it would take is one memo from a higher up person saying, "Outlook has a ton of bugs, and worms are likely to wreck havoc on the industry, but we need to release on time."
With such a free software friendly government in Peru, and with you being opposed to American and Europian government censorship, any chance of moving off to Peru to start a geek-colony? If so, I'll bring the beer:)
I'd guess '20% efficient' (or 40% for this new process) means either:
Typically, when discussing fuel "efficency," the term is used to mean the amount of power actually harnnessed verses the energy of the reaction.
The combustion engine is a classic example of a horribly inefficient power source as it is something like 7% efficient meaning that only 7% of the power produced in the reaction is actually used (the rest is heat, wear, friction, etc.).
That's a cleaver way of referring to a/. discussion:)
I haven't read Modern C++ Design, and I will probably take you up on your advice, but I would at least like to point out that the "debate" ended in the realization that his example could be implemented easier and more efficently *without* using inherentence (sp.).
I still stand by my point that there is no good reason to inherent from an STL container (although there is one justifiable reason that I had to conceed to in another thread...).
That is because C++ does not support template typedefs so using inherentence to simulate template typedef'ing is excusable.
I actually agree with your explanation of generic programming and I'm curious to see what you thought my view on it was as our conservation regardded inherentence, not generic programming (unless we had another thread going to somewhere).
I sure as hell don't agree with it. It cheapens a truely "evil" person, and makes it feel like people died in vain.
Lighten up a little. "Taste" is so subjective, it is entirely self-destructive to worry about it.
If you don't like it, don't watch it. While it offends you, it may comfort others. If you are right, and lots of people agree, then it will be removed. Otherwise, if your wrong, and people don't agree with you, you'll just cause more harm than good.
Seriously, dude, take some time to actually learn all the cases, rather than just blindly quoting some overly-simplified rule that you read in some style guide.
It's not being overly dramatic, this is coming from spending more than one late night debugging code because some entry level person who doesn't know what their doing didn't make their base classes destructor virtual.
There's a lot of things I can do safely but would never even consider doing in a production environment because while *I* may know what not to do, I cannot guarentee that others will.
The C++ commitee thought that a proxy class could be used to emulate a primative data type. They didn't know how to do this, but they believed someone would figure it out. To encourage this, they forced vector<bool> to be specialized to return a proxy object and to store the bits internally as a bitset (which is more efficent since it uses 1 bit per element instead of 1 byte).
Problem is that proxy classes cannot emulate primative types and the experiment failed. As it is, the vector bool class is still part of the standard and currently violates the rules for the behavior of a container class. (Namely that &v[0] is invalid).
Failed experiment that somehow made its way into the standard.
Slashdot Mirror
modularize Samba (it might be already, Ihave not looked) then make a module for supporting the CIFS and BSDL it. then add it to your GPL project.
You have to understand, the Samba developers cannot _look_ at the MS specs at all. They can not look at code created from the MS specs.
Have no fear, the MS extensions can be reverse engineered. Just give the Samba team a little time and all will be well.
Given the CygWin environment, it should be at least *possible* to port it.
Nope, not at all. Samba is not just a Posix application, but a pretty platform dependent _Unix_ application. Besides, there is no real way to mount file systems under Windows since there kernel is all whacko.
You can import a gnumeric document though to create a table. Remember, tables in Word are really just embedded Excel documents.
Yeah, IE has this for a while, OE and FrontPage Express can be downloaded with IE, or they can be skipped. OE is my mail client of choice, with very nice searching and filtering capabilities, and any serious webdev is not going to use something that came with their broswer to create sites.
FrontPage is not free though. I don't care about serious web development. There are many circumstances where it is necessary for a real programmer (note: web page designer are not programmers) to generate HTML for various reasons or another. It's nice to have a WYSIWYG editor that is low bloat, and that allows for complete extension via source modification.
Yeah, and IE has customizeable sidebars as well, including sites like Google (actually a top bar) MSNBC.
These things require programming extensions though. That is insecure and generally not cool. The Mozilla sidebar is based on XUL (which is an HTML-like language) so its pretty safe to install sidebars from any site.
I only reason most folks use IE is because its already there. You would be making the same argument if IE had better features than Mozilla but Mozilla was already installed. Simply put, it's laziness. I don't care if you use it or not, but don't knock it and give people a false impression of it's quality.
If you felt a need to reply, you should of simply said, "I use IE because I'm too lazy to download Mozilla. Mozilla does have better features, but I'm just lazy."
Funny thing is that music is for the most part subjective. Country music is by far the most popular form of music. At any rate, one could not even come close to objectively stating that country music is better than say rock (whereas one may be able to make an argue for classical music being better than either of the two).
On the other hand, I think one can make a very good objective argument as to why Java is a much worse language than say C++. So, while I'd be inclined to agree with your analogy (if you actually said it right, since I hate both Java and country music), it doesn't really work as an analogy.
Perhaps:
Java is to programming as N'Sync is to rock.
1) Tabbed browsing - it's worth all the hype it receives. Mozilla can be configured such that almost any action will just generate a new tab. I middle click on a link, new tab. If a link has a _TOP target, new tag. Tabs are much easier to navigate especially if your like me and tend to have 15 web pages open at once.
2) Scripting security customization. Almost all the annoying aspects of JavaScript can be individually blocked with Mozilla. This includes disabling pop-up ads or pop-under ads or those stupid things that resize your window. The nice thing is that Mozilla is smart enough to differentiate between an action that occurs onLoad or something verses one where you actually click a link.
3) Sidebar. The mozilla sidebar is pretty neat for two reasons. On the one hand, it provides easy access to things like bookmarks, history, and searching. On the other hand though, the sidebar is built on Mozillas XUL technology such that any webpage can install a new sidebar (well, you have to allow the page to install the sidebar). Freshmeat, CNN, and a few other sites have great sidebars that provide headlines and search facilities (in a compact, easy to use manner).
4) Integrated everything. Mozilla has a built in mail client, WYSIWYG editor, and address book. The WYSIWYG editor doesn't get the attention it deserves. Its really evolved from the horrible Composer of Netscape fame into something that rivals any editor that I've ever used. The mail client is really nice too with all sorts of searching and filtering capabilities that I am not aware of in Outlook (although I only use Outlook at work).
A lot of these things are just showing up in the newer releases (in a usable state at least). When the 1.0 milestone is released, I would really recommend checking it out. The release candidates so far definitely have changed the way I use the internet.
But I can still extract a useful signal from my system by applying the right filter.
But that is because part of the system isn't chaotic. This argument relies on the assumption that part of the climate system is not chaotic. The article points out things like El Nino as an example of such parts of the system that may exhibit predictability but even El Nino is not predictable in any way other than making an educated guess. It also is still dependent on localized prediction.
This experiment is trying to make a prediction 100 ahead in a system. Extrapolating the data from 50 years doesn't seem to make any sense because of the fact that the system is nonlinear to begin with and therefore doesn't lend itself to extrapolation.
So we can't just call ourselves Professional Engineers upon graduation, it takes about nine years.
.pro domain as opposed to a .ws domain since I would know that the .pro guy has something invested in it.
Which is good in my book. That makes the title actually have meaning. In my mind, a Professional Engineer under that criteria is just as much a professional as a doctor or lawyer.
What bothers me the most is how they're charging for the extension. Sure have criteria, that's fine and dandy, but to charge like that?
Well, I actually view it more as cost-of-entry issue than a profit issue. Right now, domain names have very nomal fees which lead any Joe-Blow to register all sorts of domains (heck, I even own a couple). Having a sizeable (but reasonable) cost makes people think twice before registering a domain. Someone has to be pretty serious to make such an investment since it's not just blowing $30 (which is less than one night at a strip club).
I actually think it's a pretty good idea. I personally would think more highly of a "professional" that used a
Oh come on now. I would give you credit if you spent more than 5 years in school, but I imagine you undertook a co-op program and just have a B.S.
Doctors and Lawyers have 8 year programs and such. I would agree with your argument if you had received a PhD and spent 9 years in school but you can't expect every guy who gets an engineering degree (and man, there's a lot of them) to be considered a "professional" in the good-ole-boy sense that they are pushing for.
Nobody is trying to predict the weather for the next 50 years, but rather the climate.
Which is still chaotic. See my response to the first reply in this thread.
It is certainly at least partially chaotic on smaller timescales, but there should be trends that are more or less predictable on medium timescales (decades?).
No, not in a chaotic system. The most that could be accomplished is that a small sampling from today's climate could be used to understand what possible climatical period we are in but this is not what the experiment is attempting to do.
What that would entail is collecting data in order to generate an attractor for the system. This would involve calculating phase-space coordinates. This project is attempting to extrapolate a system that can't be extrapolated.
I won't get into a global warming debate here as that wasn't my intention behind my original post but please note that bad science hurts everyone on either side of the issue.
Or to put it in chaos terms, that the fractal dimension of the attractor for weather varies inversely with the sampling frequency.
But does any chaotic system exhibit such behavoir??` The mere fact that climate is study of average weather is irrelevant to the system at hand. It is equivalent to studying the trends of a graph between [0, 10] and [0, 10000]. A chaotic system will by definition exhibit divergence either way with a slight change in initial conditions.
As one poster has pointed out, weather is a chaotic system (and climate is also chaotic by definition).
Chaos is gravely misunderstood though so let me real quick through in my explaination for why this experiment will just generate FUD.
Chaotic equations are chaotic not because of the number of variables involved but because of the interdependency on themselves (each iteration requires the former iteration). This leads to extreme sensitive dependency on initial conditions (a.k.a. the Butterfly Effect). I should have probably emphasized the word extreme because even the slightly deviation will produce dramatically different results.
Even the best climate prediction algorithm would be crap if the initial condition was off by 10^(-20). The fact that we cannot measure temperatures exactly means that we could never feed a perfect initial condition.
Chaotic equations do have a given period before divergence gets extreme when initial conditions are altered. The original equations that Lorenz used (the pioneer of weather forecasting and the father of Chaos theory) showed divergence after about three days (which is why five-day forecasts still suck to this day).
I find it very hard to believe that these folks have developed an equation that doesn't show divergence for 100 years. Not to mention the fact that the number of initial conditions are much larger than the project makes them out to be.
Summary: Some PhD is looking for research money and figures that mixing "scientific" proof for global warming, chaos, and SETI-style distributed computer has to be good for a couple million at least.
First, we have to recognize exactly what this bill would do. It would quite simply regulate the ability of youngsters to obtain video games that contain the kind of thing we already don't let them observe in movies or talk about in public. That is, it doesn't take away any rights.
Hold your horses pal, because your a little mistaken here.
First of all, cable television is not regulated in any form whatsoever. Network television is regulated by the FCC because the airwaves are a public asset. There is nothing that prevents someone from producing a show with all sorts of curses and whatever else and distributing providing that it does not violate decency laws.
Movies are regulated voluntarily by the MPAA in order to avoid congressional battle. This was a concession made by the MPAA to remain in good standing with the public. There is a big difference between an industry regulating itself, and the government regulating an industry (especially since capitalism is what drove the regulation of movies).
Video games do not make use of public assets, and are still regulated by decency laws so additional regulation by the government constitutes censorship. The government has no right to meddle in the private affairs of its citizens especially when applying decency laws selectively to a particular medium.
People get confused when they talk about the first ammendment not being all-emcompassing. The first ammendment only doesn't apply if, and only if, the speach is likely to invoke action (shouting "fire" invokes violent action). I will not buy the regulation of video games unless the government can proof that video games directly result in violent actions.
In regards to minors not being covered by the constitution, this is also bullshit as proven in numerous Supreme Court cases involving the expression of free speech in schools. Minors are individuals and are entitled to all the rights in the constitution. It just so happens that certain things, like voting, have specific clauses limiting the right to citizens capable of rational thought.
By your argument, child slavery is legal since they aren't technically people.
And to go off a bit philosophically, the only corrupting influence is the lack of exposure to a particular idea. For more on the corruption of youth in society, I recommend Plato's dialog "Apology." Socrates makes a great argument regarding the falsity of so-called "corruptive" forces.
I wouldn't want my friend's three year old to see that.
Your friend's three year old goes to the store by himself with $50 to buy video games??? Gee, if a three year old is running around alone with $50, the last thing I think you having to worry about is him buying violent video games.
Your article leaves out one important piece of info, the rental cannot occur without parental consent.
But such "parental consent" already exists. It's called money!
A kid has no source of income other than the money his parent gives him (since one cannot really work legally until at 16). If a parent is providing money to a kid, then I, for one, would hope that the use of that money is already being monitored by the parent.
As for a kid who has a job, requiring parental consent is obsurd because if the person is competent enough to earn money, then he should be competent enough to spend that money too.
The reality is a law like this will not help parents as parents who already care about what their kids are playing already are monitoring what they play. Let's remember, most video games bought for kids are purchased by the parents (since kids can't really drive in a car to the local video game store).
What this does do though is put a crutch in the purchasing ability of a very important demograph (16-18) for the video game industry since it makes it significantly harder for these individuals to purchase a video game (not because they need parental permission, but what 16-18 year old wants to go shopping with their parents).
This is a political move to appease the Christian-right while also delivering a congressional-sized F.U. to the technology industry which congress just seems so keen on screwing now-a-days (I dunno, maybe geeks are attractive or something).
I personally don't play video games but I really hate to see congress abuse their powers like this.
This may seem a bit twisted, but I would absolutely love to see robotic dogs fight instead of those stupid wedges on battle bots.
I just have these visions of the robotic dog from every bad cartoon of my childhood with metal shard teeth going after each other.
I'm gonna get me one of these things to enter into battle bots.
According to the new legislation, that classifies Outlook as an electronic terrorism program.
Screw terrorism, if it could simply be proven that MS shipped Outlook with the knowledge that it had many security flaws, they could definitely be hit with some criminal charges (although the whole "AS IS" complicates it a bit).
All it would take is one memo from a higher up person saying, "Outlook has a ton of bugs, and worms are likely to wreck havoc on the industry, but we need to release on time."
Wait a second, there are other applications other than Emacs??? When did that happen?
Alan,
:)
With such a free software friendly government in Peru, and with you being opposed to American and Europian government censorship, any chance of moving off to Peru to start a geek-colony? If so, I'll bring the beer
I'd guess '20% efficient' (or 40% for this new process) means either:
Typically, when discussing fuel "efficency," the term is used to mean the amount of power actually harnnessed verses the energy of the reaction.
The combustion engine is a classic example of a horribly inefficient power source as it is something like 7% efficient meaning that only 7% of the power produced in the reaction is actually used (the rest is heat, wear, friction, etc.).
I looked at the hawkstein/lkaos debate
/. discussion :)
That's a cleaver way of referring to a
I haven't read Modern C++ Design, and I will probably take you up on your advice, but I would at least like to point out that the "debate" ended in the realization that his example could be implemented easier and more efficently *without* using inherentence (sp.).
I still stand by my point that there is no good reason to inherent from an STL container (although there is one justifiable reason that I had to conceed to in another thread...).
That is because C++ does not support template typedefs so using inherentence to simulate template typedef'ing is excusable.
I actually agree with your explanation of generic programming and I'm curious to see what you thought my view on it was as our conservation regardded inherentence, not generic programming (unless we had another thread going to somewhere).
Yeah, I corrected myself a little further down :) Stupid HTML...
:)
Preview, what's that for
I sure as hell don't agree with it. It cheapens a truely "evil" person, and makes it feel like people died in vain.
Lighten up a little. "Taste" is so subjective, it is entirely self-destructive to worry about it.
If you don't like it, don't watch it. While it offends you, it may comfort others. If you are right, and lots of people agree, then it will be removed. Otherwise, if your wrong, and people don't agree with you, you'll just cause more harm than good.
Seriously, dude, take some time to actually learn all the cases, rather than just blindly quoting some overly-simplified rule that you read in some style guide.
It's not being overly dramatic, this is coming from spending more than one late night debugging code because some entry level person who doesn't know what their doing didn't make their base classes destructor virtual.
There's a lot of things I can do safely but would never even consider doing in a production environment because while *I* may know what not to do, I cannot guarentee that others will.
Quick summary of the story.
The C++ commitee thought that a proxy class could be used to emulate a primative data type. They didn't know how to do this, but they believed someone would figure it out. To encourage this, they forced vector<bool> to be specialized to return a proxy object and to store the bits internally as a bitset (which is more efficent since it uses 1 bit per element instead of 1 byte).
Problem is that proxy classes cannot emulate primative types and the experiment failed. As it is, the vector bool class is still part of the standard and currently violates the rules for the behavior of a container class. (Namely that &v[0] is invalid).
Failed experiment that somehow made its way into the standard.