C++ is a tremendously type safe language, to the point where every time I work with it I feel like about 90% of the work I do is in accounting for type. Most of that work is thrown away after the code has been compiled, too, but it does make for a rock solid program if you do it right.
From my experience using C++ in the field, I basically agree. While type safety can be a headache, there are many errors that strong typing eliminates entirely, almost to the point that "if it compiles, it's correct". While much type information is "thrown away" at compile time, I always find that careful consideration of type is necessary to correctly implement something large. When I have trouble mapping the problem domain onto a strictly-typed mental model, it generally means I really don't understand the problem.
I doubt Google, Adobe, or many of the thousands of other companies depening on C++ will be throwing their code base away any time soon. Rather, they will want their C++ code to be more robust and more managable. The features the article lists all seem to do this.
Ideally, files would automatically be saved and versioned continuously. Like the save button, fact that a "file" currently means "a snapshot of a file at one instant" is obsolete.
Is there ever a reason the wireless feature of RFID would be needed for passports? Wouldn't smartcards provide all the necessary forgery prevention and data storage without any need for tinfoil hats?
Very true, but that's nowhere as easy as it is in GNOME, KDE, or Windows. With OSX's accessability turned on it's still [some key combo to pop up a menu] then lots of hitting the arrow keys.
That said, I do like my Mac and would recommend one to anyone.
Who? I have never heard anyone say they hate the Mac OS. I have heard they hate that they could not get this or that program for the Mac but I have never hear that they hate Mac/OS.
I wouldn't say hate, but to this day I havn't understood OS9 and earlier. That said, OSX great. There are still some things I wish it did bettelike a sane way to use the menus without the mousebut overall the system is sweet, even if the laptops still only have one mouse button.
I talked to someone this weekend who grew up on Macs but got frusterated with them, switched to a PC, and hasn't looked back. But her switch was Pre-OSX; she just has built-up animosity from OS9 and earlier.
I don't know about individuals' podcasts, but real radiostations are doing it too. It's the easiest way I know of to get time- and space-shifted radio shows.
(You've got to love the nutral point of view of Slashdot articles.)
It takes more energy to accelerate quicker than it does to accelerate slower.
You should review your freshman physics, in particular, kenetic energy; E=½mv×v. While no car is ideal, there is no fundamental reason that a car should be less efficient at lower power levels. At any RPM, there should be an optimally-efficient power output, so anything other than that will produce sub-optimal efficiency.
Of course, if you are driving on the freeway all the time, all of your fuel use will go to fighting resistance and changing altitude.
Finally, in a world of ideal engines but with friction, the faster you accelerate the less energy it takes to get up to speed; if you accelerate instantly, you are 100% efficient at getting up to speed; if you accelerate slowly, you expend that same energy to get up to speed, but you also expend energy to overcome friction over the distance you traveled.
A more-concise, and potentially more clear solution would be: for_each(foo.begin(), foo.end(),...). Then the object over which you are iterating gets to decide how best to traverse itself, plus your semantics are at a higher level; you are saying what you mean, "do something for each element" rather than "go through in row-major order and then at that x, y do something".
Google maps has the interface feature I've been missing in every map program: it takes a single string and Just Works. Just enter the address you want in the one text field -- or just enter the street name and ZIP. Go google.
Also, the map is always as big as possible, resizing to fill the screen.
OS X is great and all -- I use it at wrok every day -- but you are the first technical user I've ever heard liking the one-button mouse. Do you really not like having a scroll wheel?
As for controlling everything though the keyboard, I do it all the time in Linux and Windows, but can't stand the interface for it on OS X. If I want to open my bookmarks menu, I just do alt+B, but on a Mac, I have to do apple+F2, right, right, right, or something like that.
Beware Apple marketing, it's a powerful force. They make great stuff -- a Mac mini may be my next computer purchase -- but only with a multi-button scroll mouse.
Even if it is the case that women as a group have inferior inate ability in math -- and that seems like a big claim to make given social factors -- that doesn't mean that there aren't millions of individual women who are better at math than you (be you male or female).
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt Google, Adobe, or many of the thousands of other companies depening on C++ will be throwing their code base away any time soon. Rather, they will want their C++ code to be more robust and more managable. The features the article lists all seem to do this.
(See Stroustrup's C++ Applications page for more.)
Ideally, files would automatically be saved and versioned continuously. Like the save button, fact that a "file" currently means "a snapshot of a file at one instant" is obsolete.
Shouldn't this depend entirely on where the A-to-D conversion happens and how much EM interference the computer produces?
As for the Windows dig, I can't see how Linux would result in less interference.
My motto is "everything in moderation, including excess."
Is there ever a reason the wireless feature of RFID would be needed for passports? Wouldn't smartcards provide all the necessary forgery prevention and data storage without any need for tinfoil hats?
Just don't let the ID folks know about the Particle Motion Theory of heat.
Very true, but that's nowhere as easy as it is in GNOME, KDE, or Windows. With OSX's accessability turned on it's still [some key combo to pop up a menu] then lots of hitting the arrow keys.
That said, I do like my Mac and would recommend one to anyone.
I wouldn't say hate, but to this day I havn't understood OS9 and earlier. That said, OSX great. There are still some things I wish it did bettelike a sane way to use the menus without the mousebut overall the system is sweet, even if the laptops still only have one mouse button.
I talked to someone this weekend who grew up on Macs but got frusterated with them, switched to a PC, and hasn't looked back. But her switch was Pre-OSX; she just has built-up animosity from OS9 and earlier.
Have you no sense of decency, Slashdot, at long lat?
And on what modern operating system is that the interface for ejecting?
The Mac used to do this, which I agree was stupid, but OSX has the trash can turn into an eject icon when you drag an ejectable volume.
I don't know about individuals' podcasts, but real radiostations are doing it too. It's the easiest way I know of to get time- and space-shifted radio shows.
(You've got to love the nutral point of view of Slashdot articles.)
You should review your freshman physics, in particular, kenetic energy; E=½mv×v. While no car is ideal, there is no fundamental reason that a car should be less efficient at lower power levels. At any RPM, there should be an optimally-efficient power output, so anything other than that will produce sub-optimal efficiency.
Of course, if you are driving on the freeway all the time, all of your fuel use will go to fighting resistance and changing altitude.
Finally, in a world of ideal engines but with friction, the faster you accelerate the less energy it takes to get up to speed; if you accelerate instantly, you are 100% efficient at getting up to speed; if you accelerate slowly, you expend that same energy to get up to speed, but you also expend energy to overcome friction over the distance you traveled.
If you do that, you can use the DMCA. If they think MalWart has anything to do with WalMart, then they circumvented your encryption scheme.
For reference, see theory in Wikipedia.
The Santa Monica NPR affiliate, KCRW, does podcasts of their in-house news and information shows.
Fixed. I didn't add all of them, but I added all that already have pages and then some.
Will it get a 22 year old college student laid like Hula?
A more-concise, and potentially more clear solution would be: for_each(foo.begin(), foo.end(), ...). Then the object over which you are iterating gets to decide how best to traverse itself, plus your semantics are at a higher level; you are saying what you mean, "do something for each element" rather than "go through in row-major order and then at that x, y do something".
Google maps has the interface feature I've been missing in every map program: it takes a single string and Just Works. Just enter the address you want in the one text field -- or just enter the street name and ZIP. Go google.
Also, the map is always as big as possible, resizing to fill the screen.
OS X is great and all -- I use it at wrok every day -- but you are the first technical user I've ever heard liking the one-button mouse. Do you really not like having a scroll wheel?
As for controlling everything though the keyboard, I do it all the time in Linux and Windows, but can't stand the interface for it on OS X. If I want to open my bookmarks menu, I just do alt+B, but on a Mac, I have to do apple+F2, right, right, right, or something like that.
Beware Apple marketing, it's a powerful force. They make great stuff -- a Mac mini may be my next computer purchase -- but only with a multi-button scroll mouse.
Even if it is the case that women as a group have inferior inate ability in math -- and that seems like a big claim to make given social factors -- that doesn't mean that there aren't millions of individual women who are better at math than you (be you male or female).
I agree on the dorkyness count, but that said Miguel, Nat, and all the other Ximians say "guh-nome" in real life.
As Edward Tufte once pointed out, there are two industries that have "users".
Oh yeah, print is dead. Just look what happened to the 'paperless office' idea.
From time to time we get coppier salespeople stopping by our office; we keep meaning to tell them we have a paperless office.