...I think Microsoft has gotten knocked down hard and learned a little humility. They now have to compete on merit, rather than just leverage their IBM-gifted monopoly to squash any competition....
Wrongo, Microsoft still makes 100% of its vast windfall profits from leveraging its monopoly. Still a monpolist, still no need to compete on the merits. The only thorn in Microsoft's nose at the moment is its inability to force its way into new markets. Please do not misinterpret this slight retrenchment as any kind of personality transplant, which is the only thing that can possibly exorcise the evil that was and still is Microsoft.
What I would like from MS is an apology and a big slurpy wet kiss on my asshole with plenty of suction. And then I still won't trust them, but at least my ass will be clean.
All very nice to hear about shiny new features, but I would be even happier to hear Mozilla foundatation announce that they plan to fix the longstanding bug where 200 open tabs causes firefox to crash every two days or so.
We spent thousands of man years on making this shit work...
It doesn't work. It has never worked. It will never work. It is nothing less than one metric ton of pure unadulteraded idiocy, always has been and always will be.
Restricting to females isn't going nearly far enough. It should be restricted to skinny little oriental females. Let's be honest. Ah, and one male should be sufficient for, um, long term planning... I hereby volunteer!
1: A lot of ranch vehicles tend to go a long distance, but get parked near the same spot at night, so an electric charger is useful.
2: Trucks need torque at 0RPM. Electric motors deliver here in spades.
3: Welders and other tools are needed. Having a heavy duty inverter and the ability to use the battery bank for powering an air compressor would come quite handy.
4: Electric motors need a lot less upkeep than a diesel engine. No pee cans, no DPFs, no EGR valves, air filters, oil filters, just very minimal maintenance required.
5: They use no fuel when stopped/idling, other than to keep the vehicle electronics going and the climate control system.
6: They are quiet.
7: An electric motor can sit indefinitely without worry about fuel turning to sludge (in the case of gasoline) or getting algae in it (like diesel.)
8: No exhaust.
9: Wet dreams about the size of spotlight you can put on it
How do we know that the real issue isn't scripting silliness and otherwise inefficient code design? Not saying this is the case, just pointing out that the possibility is glossed over.
"Substandard programmers" is pure rhetoric and Linus knows it. He is not a dummy when it comes to debating and is very clear on what is and is not a logical falacy. When he makes an unfalsifiable claim like "substandard programmers" that is simply his way of saying shut up, my ears are closed.
I recently had to rewrite a modestly sized embedded project from C++ to C because it became clear that I could not afford the space for the mandatory libraries in the binary.
Hmmph, you were either using a truly substandard toolchain or you have little clue about what you are doing. The whole point of a library is, it doesn't become part of your program if you don't use it and doesn't use up memory. If you don't use exceptions for example, the exception support won't be linked in. Likewise iostreams. Check the headers you included.
The C++ dream of writing a small bit of code which can be reused through inheritance or templatization, allowing the code and the caller to evolve independently, is a pipe dream.
Rubbish. You don't need to look any further than the "max" function to falsify that claim.
I'm sure everyone will believe your theory that linus just can't grasp C++'s advantages and that's the reason why he doesn't want to rewrite the entire kernel in C++
C++ object can be linked with C code, I have used that ability to add C++ code incrementally to projects originally developed in C. As a result, have had plenty of opportunity to compare the C++ result to the original C. Typically, equivalent or identical object code but source is more consise, readable and maintainable.
What is up with the nasty/evil modding in this thread?
The Linux kernel makes heavy use of big ugly, hard to maintain or read macros that generate arbitrary machine code. No matter how good you are, you won't know what code is being generated without extensive analysis. In any case, the exact same ugly macros can be used by C++, if you are really wedded to that kind of bad taste. C in fact has no addtional features in this area, it only lacks features that C++ has.
If you want to point at features that C has which C++ does not then you get a very small set, which in the case of the kernel consists mostly of designated initializers.
Slashdot Mirror
...I think Microsoft has gotten knocked down hard and learned a little humility. They now have to compete on merit, rather than just leverage their IBM-gifted monopoly to squash any competition....
Wrongo, Microsoft still makes 100% of its vast windfall profits from leveraging its monopoly. Still a monpolist, still no need to compete on the merits. The only thorn in Microsoft's nose at the moment is its inability to force its way into new markets. Please do not misinterpret this slight retrenchment as any kind of personality transplant, which is the only thing that can possibly exorcise the evil that was and still is Microsoft.
What I'd like from MS is an apology...
What I would like from MS is an apology and a big slurpy wet kiss on my asshole with plenty of suction. And then I still won't trust them, but at least my ass will be clean.
All very nice to hear about shiny new features, but I would be even happier to hear Mozilla foundatation announce that they plan to fix the longstanding bug where 200 open tabs causes firefox to crash every two days or so.
Oh, also announce that the bug where keystrokes go to the wrong window will be fixed. Thxbai.
I was thinking, Facebook
We will see what you have to say about it when Ben Franklin brings out his cannons...
Ben Franklin... isn't he that guy who flew his kite in a lightning storm and survived?
We spent thousands of man years on making this shit work...
It doesn't work. It has never worked. It will never work. It is nothing less than one metric ton of pure unadulteraded idiocy, always has been and always will be.
20 person meetings are generally a complete waste of time for the 19 who aren't monologuing.
Video calls suck, you have to shave. At least you don't need to put on pants.
Restricting to females isn't going nearly far enough. It should be restricted to skinny little oriental females. Let's be honest. Ah, and one male should be sufficient for, um, long term planning... I hereby volunteer!
In Germany, EVERYBODY drinks carbonated water all the time, so this would spell doom on almost the whole population, hence i am a bit sceptical?
Notice that Germany lies well down the list of life exectancy by country.
1: A lot of ranch vehicles tend to go a long distance, but get parked near the same spot at night, so an electric charger is useful.
2: Trucks need torque at 0RPM. Electric motors deliver here in spades.
3: Welders and other tools are needed. Having a heavy duty inverter and the ability to use the battery bank for powering an air compressor would come quite handy.
4: Electric motors need a lot less upkeep than a diesel engine. No pee cans, no DPFs, no EGR valves, air filters, oil filters, just very minimal maintenance required.
5: They use no fuel when stopped/idling, other than to keep the vehicle electronics going and the climate control system.
6: They are quiet.
7: An electric motor can sit indefinitely without worry about fuel turning to sludge (in the case of gasoline) or getting algae in it (like diesel.)
8: No exhaust.
9: Wet dreams about the size of spotlight you can put on it
How do we know that the real issue isn't scripting silliness and otherwise inefficient code design? Not saying this is the case, just pointing out that the possibility is glossed over.
I thought the biggest roadblock to adopting fusion energy was that it doesn't work?
See that big yellow thing up in the sky?
By having to carry that payment as a liability, presumably according to the contract.
Rubbish on one claim, yet you accede to all the other, more substantive and important claims?
Fallacy.
I wish I were as confident as you about where the dividing line lies.
I am pretty tolerant, but these people really disgust me. Notice that the octopus really, really does not want to be eaten.
"Substandard programmers" is pure rhetoric and Linus knows it. He is not a dummy when it comes to debating and is very clear on what is and is not a logical falacy. When he makes an unfalsifiable claim like "substandard programmers" that is simply his way of saying shut up, my ears are closed.
I have a program using MSVC which is about 10% faster when compiled as C...
Microsoft's fault, draw no conclusion from that. At least, don't draw the conclusion you are trying to draw.
Incorrect. When you don't use RTTI (flag it off) then it imposes neither a runtime or code size cost.
Why can't you just look at the preprocessor output?
Go ahead and try it. Get the source code here.
I recently had to rewrite a modestly sized embedded project from C++ to C because it became clear that I could not afford the space for the mandatory libraries in the binary.
Hmmph, you were either using a truly substandard toolchain or you have little clue about what you are doing. The whole point of a library is, it doesn't become part of your program if you don't use it and doesn't use up memory. If you don't use exceptions for example, the exception support won't be linked in. Likewise iostreams. Check the headers you included.
The C++ dream of writing a small bit of code which can be reused through inheritance or templatization, allowing the code and the caller to evolve independently, is a pipe dream.
Rubbish. You don't need to look any further than the "max" function to falsify that claim.
I'm sure everyone will believe your theory that linus just can't grasp C++'s advantages and that's the reason why he doesn't want to rewrite the entire kernel in C++
C++ object can be linked with C code, I have used that ability to add C++ code incrementally to projects originally developed in C. As a result, have had plenty of opportunity to compare the C++ result to the original C. Typically, equivalent or identical object code but source is more consise, readable and maintainable.
What is up with the nasty/evil modding in this thread?
The Linux kernel makes heavy use of big ugly, hard to maintain or read macros that generate arbitrary machine code. No matter how good you are, you won't know what code is being generated without extensive analysis. In any case, the exact same ugly macros can be used by C++, if you are really wedded to that kind of bad taste. C in fact has no addtional features in this area, it only lacks features that C++ has.
If you want to point at features that C has which C++ does not then you get a very small set, which in the case of the kernel consists mostly of designated initializers.