Kinda, but your peers didn't just "happen" across it. I work real close with a couple of PR guys doing clandestine marketing for them. You can generate buzz for much less than it costs to inundate someone with branding.
Yeah, just mention it on/.
I wonder how many people will check out the game mentioned? I probably will.
Actually, I mentioned that, but don't like it because it's just more clutter. You're still working for the compiler rather than the other way around.
I think it all boils down to a short-sighted (at least in hindsight) choice made by the implementors of the original C++ compilers and wasn't corrected until the standard was actually passed and people like Microsoft made a concerted effort to follow the standard to the fullest. From what I've heard VC++ 2003 is among the best, if not the best, at fully and correctly implementing the ANSI standard and MS deserves a big thumbs up for this. (Hey, gotta toss 'em a bone once in a while, they do occasionally do things really well.)
It was certainly interesting in the "bad old days" when no two compilers implemented things like templates the same way. Of course, I'm no fan of templates, since they are essentially a kludge to work around the fact that there are atomic variable types that are not part of the OO implentation in C. If there were some abstract type from which int, char, etc, were derived then templates would be unnecessary. In other words, templates only exist because C++ isn't fully OO.
Of course, then we wouldn't have "template metaprogramming" and there would be a whole bunch of computer geeks who would have to stop writing papers and articles showing us how smart they are implementing the Sieve of Eratosthanes that prints prime numbers in compiler warnings, and get back to doing useful work.:-P
If you do a lot of loops, it makes sense to reuse the "i" variable, since it's been a standard iterator name since the days of Fortran in the 60's.
The old compiler (VC6, which I use by the way) didn't recognize variables declared in the for clause as existing only within the scope of the for loop.
So what do you do?
1. Use a different variable name for each loop. Granted sometimes this makes sense. I find myself more and more using short descriptive names anyway, but forcing yourself to use a new variable name for each loop is annoying and yet another in a list of hundreds of ways Microsoft makes you work for their tools rather than the other way around. Or worse, you put extra braces around eacf for loop. All ugly and clumsy, but then again if you've ever seen what ClassWizard does to your code or used AppStudio generated code you know that MS seems to think code needs to look like goat spew.
or
2. Do exactly what you describe, and reuse i over and over even though it's incorrect. What's worse is if you wanted to write code that would work in both versions. Either you have to go through the pointless exercises above, or some other ugly kludge, or you have to disable the proper scoping in the newer compiler. It's messy and ugly either way.
Finally, I'd be mroe than happy to consider upgrading to something newer than VC6, but none of clients have ever wanted to. They insist on staying with the tried and true, and I'm not going to argue because that's perfectly fine with me.
I never understood why they cancelled futurama when it had so much mileage in it.
We're talking Fox here. You know, the network that if it was a person would have a few too many chromosomes, a drinking problem, no teeth, and be married to his sister. 'Nuff said.
That seems to be a recurring feature with MS... tools that quietly destroy your data once the size exceeds a certain level.
I switched from OE to Outlook 2003 about 2 years ago and promptly found it lost some of the data I imported. I asked around and the response was "Oh yeah, Outlook lunches your data once the message store exceeds about a gig and a half."
I don't know about you, but I think they should be shot for releasing this. That's like selling a car that exploded at 90 MPH and not telling anyone because most people don't drive 90 (at least here in the Eastern U.S.)
The worst thing is that Outlook was more than an order of magnitude slower than OE. The spam feature was very good and the UI was well-designed, but it just didn't frickin' work. I've been using Thunderbird ever since and am (almost) perfectly happy.
As anyone who's ever used SourceSafe will attest, it's horrible because it will lose your data. It happened to me. Microsoft never used it. They use something that they've never released to the public.
Well, being anonymous to the rest of the class does not require being anonymous to the instructor. Unless you are afraid he's going to mock you too...;-P
Not only does it explain a lot, it's been glaringly obvious for more than a decade. Everything Microsoft has done since before the days of Windows 3 has smacked of design-by-committee and a painful lack of consistency. Everything in Windows has always had the smell of being designed and implemented by dozens of groups that had little or no communication with each other. I'm surprised they managed to release code at all, however buggy and insecure, with the development model they were using.
It will be interesting to see if Vista demonstrates an improved level of quality due to this new process.
2040! Twenty-frickin-forty! Can you even imagine how far technology will have advanced? Can anyone even imagine the capabilities we'll have to decode old media, assuming that we could possibly forget how to use it? I've got floppy disks that are pushing 25 years old that I can still read if I hook up my old 5-1/4" drive. Sure a couple are unreadable, but most of them are fine (at least as of about 1997 when I archived them all). We're only talking 35 years from now... and important data will probably will periodically upgraded to new media as it becomes available. I migrated from floppies to ZIP disks to CD-R to DVD-R, although I still have the capability to read all those formats, if I needed.
Assuming you come across an optical disc format you don't know how to read, just throw the CD into an electron microscope and feed the picture into your computer and let the A.I. work on it for a few hours. Presto! Instant data. I'm sure data recovery services will be cheap, plentiful and highly capable for all kinds of obsolete formats.
By that time, you'll probably have services where you can stick a box of old papers or an old book into some kind of high-resolution MRI or PET device and have the computer reconstruct all the contents without having the risk of destroying them by taking out the contents.
Huh? Do you have any idea what I said? Apparently not.
What I said was that if you are not willing to ask questions because you are afraid of being made fun of then you shouldn't be taking the class. We're not talking elementary school here. If you are that fragile, you have no business being out in public and wouldn't survive a week at a real job. If you have a legitimate question, then you should ask it. Chances are others have the same question. If people scorn you, well, grow a spine.
I never said _I_ would scorn people, I just said that I don't see what the use of clickers is. If a person doesn't get something, he should ask a question. If after a reasonable amount of repetition he still doesn't get it he should seek help outside of class. I just don't see how some kind of high-tech gizmo would be of any help.
Teaching got on just fine for thousands of years without clickers. I was simply arguing that the "scorn" reason is a stupid reason to use this gimmick and that I didn't see any other legitimate reason. Perhaps there is one and you could explain it to me.
Quit trying to bash me just because I think we should stop babying people. This is the kind of attitude that makes for emotional cripples out in the real world that cause projects to fail and make people like you and me work lots of unpaid overtime to fix.
But "identifying yourself for potential scorn" is the entire definition of life. If you can't hack it in a class, you'll never hack it anywhere else, you might as well crawl back into the womb.
It seems to me that _that_ problem should be handled outside of class. But I have a hard time seeing any utility in having "clickers" in class in the first place.
It's time that bands did something about it, or be branded money-grabbing hypocrits. The power to bring down the system is in their hands. Currently the majority just have no interest in using that power and getting rid of the old machine.
That's all well and good. Would you risk your livelihood to stand up for a cause against a company to which you will almost certainly lose?
Most people can't afford to put their lives on hold and lose years' worth (if not more) of income to take a moral stand.
That might be sad, that might be selling out, but that's life. Most people can't afford to fight a crusade, and no sane person wants to be a martyr for a cause he probably can't win.
they luckily didn't foresee that their 1.0 release would be announced on Slashdot with a spelling mistake in the name
No, they looked at a few articles on/. and saw that the typo was an inevitability, chalked it up as the irrelevant idiocy that it is and got back to work.
Seriously, continuing to treat security problems simple as PR issues eventually crosses the line of fraud (from an economic view) or sedition/sabotage (from a nationalistic view).
Oh, come on, why can't you just patch or buy the upgrade?
>I never felt that my contributions in these special projects was appreciated in any way, shape, or form.
This is pretty common in these days of commoditization of employees. When you're just a warm body, recognition doesn't make sense. As companies get bigger, this becomes more of a problem and these days, employees are just another resource, like paperclips or Post-its.
That's as ridiculous as suggesting that people could avoid becoming obese by getting regular exercise and eating in moderation. Those views are inherently biased against the people of the southern and rural United States.
Just like expecting people to not rant like some kind of arrogant know-it-all elitist jerk is inherently biased against posters to/.
Don't these people know how stupid and insincere they sound, or are they just preaching to the know-nothings and don't care what those in the know think. Come to think of it, that describes almost everyone in public life...
It reminds me of Tom DeLay stating (with a straight face no less) that there is no longer any fat to trim in the Federal Government because the Republicans have been doing such a good job. I think impeachment is in order for such a ludicrous statement, but given that standard, most of Congress would need to be impeached every week.
You have to be kidding, right? What do you use, some kind of 20-year-old card you scrounged out of a Kaypro? I've never seen a NIC that wasn't supported by Windows. Sure, if your hardware is East German war surplus, Windows might not support it, but then you should join the 21st century.
>I can't just "mount" it and have it be a transparant part of the file system
You can if you use NTFS. You _do_ use NTFS, right?
Really, Windows supports and obscene variety of hardware. Sure, it's far from perfect, and MS's software development is managed by idiots, but at last make fair criticisms.
Slashdot Mirror
Kinda, but your peers didn't just "happen" across it. I work real close with a couple of PR guys doing clandestine marketing for them. You can generate buzz for much less than it costs to inundate someone with branding.
/.
Yeah, just mention it on
I wonder how many people will check out the game mentioned? I probably will.
Actually, I mentioned that, but don't like it because it's just more clutter. You're still working for the compiler rather than the other way around.
:-P
I think it all boils down to a short-sighted (at least in hindsight) choice made by the implementors of the original C++ compilers and wasn't corrected until the standard was actually passed and people like Microsoft made a concerted effort to follow the standard to the fullest. From what I've heard VC++ 2003 is among the best, if not the best, at fully and correctly implementing the ANSI standard and MS deserves a big thumbs up for this. (Hey, gotta toss 'em a bone once in a while, they do occasionally do things really well.)
It was certainly interesting in the "bad old days" when no two compilers implemented things like templates the same way. Of course, I'm no fan of templates, since they are essentially a kludge to work around the fact that there are atomic variable types that are not part of the OO implentation in C. If there were some abstract type from which int, char, etc, were derived then templates would be unnecessary. In other words, templates only exist because C++ isn't fully OO.
Of course, then we wouldn't have "template metaprogramming" and there would be a whole bunch of computer geeks who would have to stop writing papers and articles showing us how smart they are implementing the Sieve of Eratosthanes that prints prime numbers in compiler warnings, and get back to doing useful work.
Duh. Nothing. I'm so used to declaring in the for loop I didn't even consider the goold old C way.
Duh.
The problem is the compiler, not practice.
If you do a lot of loops, it makes sense to reuse the "i" variable, since it's been a standard iterator name since the days of Fortran in the 60's.
The old compiler (VC6, which I use by the way) didn't recognize variables declared in the for clause as existing only within the scope of the for loop.
So what do you do?
1. Use a different variable name for each loop. Granted sometimes this makes sense. I find myself more and more using short descriptive names anyway, but forcing yourself to use a new variable name for each loop is annoying and yet another in a list of hundreds of ways Microsoft makes you work for their tools rather than the other way around. Or worse, you put extra braces around eacf for loop. All ugly and clumsy, but then again if you've ever seen what ClassWizard does to your code or used AppStudio generated code you know that MS seems to think code needs to look like goat spew.
or
2. Do exactly what you describe, and reuse i over and over even though it's incorrect. What's worse is if you wanted to write code that would work in both versions. Either you have to go through the pointless exercises above, or some other ugly kludge, or you have to disable the proper scoping in the newer compiler. It's messy and ugly either way.
Finally, I'd be mroe than happy to consider upgrading to something newer than VC6, but none of clients have ever wanted to. They insist on staying with the tried and true, and I'm not going to argue because that's perfectly fine with me.
I never understood why they cancelled futurama when it had so much mileage in it.
We're talking Fox here. You know, the network that if it was a person would have a few too many chromosomes, a drinking problem, no teeth, and be married to his sister. 'Nuff said.
That seems to be a recurring feature with MS... tools that quietly destroy your data once the size exceeds a certain level.
I switched from OE to Outlook 2003 about 2 years ago and promptly found it lost some of the data I imported. I asked around and the response was "Oh yeah, Outlook lunches your data once the message store exceeds about a gig and a half."
I don't know about you, but I think they should be shot for releasing this. That's like selling a car that exploded at 90 MPH and not telling anyone because most people don't drive 90 (at least here in the Eastern U.S.)
The worst thing is that Outlook was more than an order of magnitude slower than OE. The spam feature was very good and the UI was well-designed, but it just didn't frickin' work. I've been using Thunderbird ever since and am (almost) perfectly happy.
As anyone who's ever used SourceSafe will attest, it's horrible because it will lose your data. It happened to me. Microsoft never used it. They use something that they've never released to the public.
Well, being anonymous to the rest of the class does not require being anonymous to the instructor. Unless you are afraid he's going to mock you too... ;-P
Not only does it explain a lot, it's been glaringly obvious for more than a decade. Everything Microsoft has done since before the days of Windows 3 has smacked of design-by-committee and a painful lack of consistency. Everything in Windows has always had the smell of being designed and implemented by dozens of groups that had little or no communication with each other. I'm surprised they managed to release code at all, however buggy and insecure, with the development model they were using.
It will be interesting to see if Vista demonstrates an improved level of quality due to this new process.
2040! Twenty-frickin-forty! Can you even imagine how far technology will have advanced? Can anyone even imagine the capabilities we'll have to decode old media, assuming that we could possibly forget how to use it? I've got floppy disks that are pushing 25 years old that I can still read if I hook up my old 5-1/4" drive. Sure a couple are unreadable, but most of them are fine (at least as of about 1997 when I archived them all). We're only talking 35 years from now... and important data will probably will periodically upgraded to new media as it becomes available. I migrated from floppies to ZIP disks to CD-R to DVD-R, although I still have the capability to read all those formats, if I needed.
Assuming you come across an optical disc format you don't know how to read, just throw the CD into an electron microscope and feed the picture into your computer and let the A.I. work on it for a few hours. Presto! Instant data. I'm sure data recovery services will be cheap, plentiful and highly capable for all kinds of obsolete formats.
By that time, you'll probably have services where you can stick a box of old papers or an old book into some kind of high-resolution MRI or PET device and have the computer reconstruct all the contents without having the risk of destroying them by taking out the contents.
You mean you can't go to altavista.com? or Lycos? or MSN?
It's a small price to pay if you ask me... much less than seeing a banner.
Huh? Do you have any idea what I said? Apparently not.
What I said was that if you are not willing to ask questions because you are afraid of being made fun of then you shouldn't be taking the class. We're not talking elementary school here. If you are that fragile, you have no business being out in public and wouldn't survive a week at a real job. If you have a legitimate question, then you should ask it. Chances are others have the same question. If people scorn you, well, grow a spine.
I never said _I_ would scorn people, I just said that I don't see what the use of clickers is. If a person doesn't get something, he should ask a question. If after a reasonable amount of repetition he still doesn't get it he should seek help outside of class. I just don't see how some kind of high-tech gizmo would be of any help.
Teaching got on just fine for thousands of years without clickers. I was simply arguing that the "scorn" reason is a stupid reason to use this gimmick and that I didn't see any other legitimate reason. Perhaps there is one and you could explain it to me.
Quit trying to bash me just because I think we should stop babying people. This is the kind of attitude that makes for emotional cripples out in the real world that cause projects to fail and make people like you and me work lots of unpaid overtime to fix.
But "identifying yourself for potential scorn" is the entire definition of life. If you can't hack it in a class, you'll never hack it anywhere else, you might as well crawl back into the womb.
It seems to me that _that_ problem should be handled outside of class. But I have a hard time seeing any utility in having "clickers" in class in the first place.
Forget screensavers... go for something like ping.
It's time that bands did something about it, or be branded money-grabbing hypocrits. The power to bring down the system is in their hands. Currently the majority just have no interest in using that power and getting rid of the old machine.
That's all well and good. Would you risk your livelihood to stand up for a cause against a company to which you will almost certainly lose?
Most people can't afford to put their lives on hold and lose years' worth (if not more) of income to take a moral stand.
That might be sad, that might be selling out, but that's life. Most people can't afford to fight a crusade, and no sane person wants to be a martyr for a cause he probably can't win.
they luckily didn't foresee that their 1.0 release would be announced on Slashdot with a spelling mistake in the name
/. and saw that the typo was an inevitability, chalked it up as the irrelevant idiocy that it is and got back to work.
No, they looked at a few articles on
Most 18-year-olds are idiots, so who cares?
Seriously, continuing to treat security problems simple as PR issues eventually crosses the line of fraud (from an economic view) or sedition/sabotage (from a nationalistic view).
Oh, come on, why can't you just patch or buy the upgrade?
>I never felt that my contributions in these special projects was appreciated in any way, shape, or form.
This is pretty common in these days of commoditization of employees. When you're just a warm body, recognition doesn't make sense. As companies get bigger, this becomes more of a problem and these days, employees are just another resource, like paperclips or Post-its.
Being treated like a human is becoming passe.
Pfft! Snipes used WASD back in 1982... and I bet there were Unix games that used it before them.
That's as ridiculous as suggesting that people could avoid becoming obese by getting regular exercise and eating in moderation. Those views are inherently biased against the people of the southern and rural United States.
/.
Just like expecting people to not rant like some kind of arrogant know-it-all elitist jerk is inherently biased against posters to
How can he say this with a straight face?
Don't these people know how stupid and insincere they sound, or are they just preaching to the know-nothings and don't care what those in the know think. Come to think of it, that describes almost everyone in public life...
It reminds me of Tom DeLay stating (with a straight face no less) that there is no longer any fat to trim in the Federal Government because the Republicans have been doing such a good job. I think impeachment is in order for such a ludicrous statement, but given that standard, most of Congress would need to be impeached every week.
Anonymous Coward has a UID of Aleph-Null, and usually the insight that corresponds to it, according to your formulation.
It's commonly understood that En means "* 10^n" since the days of 1970's scientific calculators.
/., where can you you use slang?
The interpretation you used is not a standardly used one, AFAIK. Besides, if you can't use slang on
Thanks 1E6 for you understanding.
>It never has a driver for *any* nic I ever owned
You have to be kidding, right? What do you use, some kind of 20-year-old card you scrounged out of a Kaypro? I've never seen a NIC that wasn't supported by Windows. Sure, if your hardware is East German war surplus, Windows might not support it, but then you should join the 21st century.
>I can't just "mount" it and have it be a transparant part of the file system
You can if you use NTFS. You _do_ use NTFS, right?
Really, Windows supports and obscene variety of hardware. Sure, it's far from perfect, and MS's software development is managed by idiots, but at last make fair criticisms.