And yet, the compiler that Linux uses is now written in... C++ and in the process of converting C style code into C++ style where it makes sense. Because the C code was too unwieldy. Linus wrote his original dive log program in C + GTK, and then was forced to switch to Qt because GTK's attempt at OO made everything unmaintainable.
LLVM and Clang are written in C++ also.
Wrapping things in abstractions is necessary and is done in the Linux kernel all the time with macros, which are less maintainable and more impenetrable than templates. There certainly are things in the kernel that would benefit from being templated rather than macro'd.
I tried using some of the "safe pointer" stuff - depending on which one is chosen, there is a performance hit depending on which safety mechanism you choose. For example, the auto-deallocate safety net slows things down a lot, while bounds checking tends to be less of a problem.
With shared_ptr, the performance hit is with the reference count updating, so you should still pass a shared_ptr as a reference when possible.
With unique_ptr and the std containers (of movable types), I can't imagine the auto-deallocation would cost any more than manual deallocation in C since they are really just the equivalent of one manual deallocation call.
So your argument is that we must be hypocrites or "phony" or "selective" if we don't just lie down and take it.
How about this? We regret this route was taken, but that's what you get with CU.
Or how about this? We heard it was right that money = speech. But now that we've wisened up and decided to play your game against you, now you're all butthurt about us not lying down and taking it.
Yes, it was invented through a fear of learning and incompetence. It's literally designed to handhold the developer and limit the features that are useful, like multiple inheritance and operator overloading. And it certainly didn't (and I would argue, still doesn't) handle resource cleanup especially well - it's not just about freeing memory safely and reliably, which C++ does better than Java, even before smart pointers, but also other resources like locks, instead of relying on the programmer to remember to release locks etc.
Yes, Java has become a bedrock of enterprise development. But that's because enterprise development is boring and enterprises generally don't like to hire competent people or use state of the art technology. That's why enterprises require LTS versions of stuff and stick with J2EE instead of going to EE 7 or whatnot.
Just a few weeks ago, there was an article posted here about Java 8 features like streams and lambdas. The reaction? Most people hated it. Gee, you don't think fear of learning and incompetence may have something to do with it? I, as a C++ developer, learnt Java 8 streams and lambdas and was writing "enterprise code" in a day with it. It was super simple and made complex things super simple, and yet people were nitpicking the syntax only because they were unfamiliar with it but tried to hide their fear by saying "it sucks" etc. I only need to see the attitudes of programmers themselves regarding new features that you can see a culture of fear of learning and incompetence.
I certainly don't. It played a large part in cementing a culture where programmers learn to hate having to learn advanced parts of a programming language, and then, due to their own limitations and fear of learning, decide it's better to create yet another program language that has its own set of problems that either their parent language had solved in advanced features, or they reinvent the car crash from another language.
But if one does call in, the officials certainly would listen, check the footage for the player the tosser is claiming has an infraction, and decide if it's a prank or not.
Yes, and that's what also happens in science discussions too. People with the knowledge can decide if the person is "pranking" or otherwise unqualified and dismiss their claim. The thing about golf tournaments is that only golf enthusiasts would call in - it's self selecting. But with science, every precious snowflake has decided their ideas are worth as much as someone who dedicate their life to scientific research.
Nobody checks their claims, until the clamor builds to a roar.
Yeah they do. And every crackpot theory has been found wanting, and even debunked multiple times. But all a precious snowflake has to do is to disregard to explanations given and just repeat and repeat. So then the mainstream science crowd are pretty much justified in insulting the peope who, frankly, started the insults first by pretending that their uneducated opinions are equal to scientists.
Like I said, there is no "only" part of my claim. There were words before and after "only". Namely: "if not only". Do you know what "if not" means, when applied to to something?
As these results are based entirely on statistical evidence, not on any direct link between tidal forces and actual quakes, they are quite uncertain and unproven.
Given that the article does not say tidal forces CAUSE quakes, this cushioning is completely unnecessary. They're only noting a suggestion of a link between tidal forces and the magnitude of the quake - not the occurrence/non-occurrence of a quake.
And something being "based entirely on statistical evidence" does not invalidate or weaken anything. It is the quality of the statistical evidence, not the mere use of statistical evidence, that would invalidate or weaken a claim.
Do the golfers, reviewers and tournament officers have to take every single call from a spectator seriously? Or does it count if some random tosser calls in and gives their opinion?
Because if the latter does count, then yes, science has that level of scrutiny. Because we see on Slashdot and in the media, every idiot can comment on Slashdot or appear on or call in to a show and give their opinion on scientific research, regardless of how educated or knowledgeable they are in the area. Everything from string theory to dark matter/energy to AGW to nuclear power or renewable energy.
And yet it's still other scientists who are pushing back against the bad studies and bought results. Scientists are mere mortals, but science is still the major, if not only, area of life where that introspection happens.
Don't mistake unfamiliarity with incomprehensible. It's better than for loops because the method names tells you the intention and the guarantees of that operation.
How about... read the fucking documentation? I'm a C++ guy and always lamented the fact that Java did not have an algorithms equivalent. Java 8 streams + lambdas are almost there and you can achieve complex things without nested loops.
Stop conflating your unfamiliarity with it being shit. It took me, a C++ guy, a day of getting used to it. If you can't wrap your head around that, you shouldn't be programming. It's easy stuff.
If you read Greg and Linus' actual comments in the mailing list, they're not against enforcement. They're against getting lawyers to do the enforcement. They prefer to enforce it by convincing the actual developers (not their employers or their lawyers) to comply.
If I cannot incorporate your code into my project without changing my license to match yours, then I have less freedom.
Instead of a gift, you have shared something you made with some strings attached.
Failure to appease your sense of entitlement is not reducing your freedom.
If the person did not open their code at all, which is the default state under copyright law, you had NO FREEDOM to begin with. So if someone opens their code up as GPL, by any measure, your freedom increased. Just because it didn't increase as much as you'd like doesn't mean your freedom is reduced. The default state of affairs is that you have NO freedom to use their code in the first place and that is the state you must start measuring from. Not the state where all code is public domain.
And no, GPL is not a gift. Open source is not a gift. No one is obligated to gift you anything.
What you wrote was completely irrelevant to what Linus was saying. My reply was pointing that irrelevance out, so I'm in no way obligated to address your point. Linus was clearly talking about the kernel, because THAT IS HIS JOB, when he was talking about fragmentation. Just because you want to strawman his quote to what you want to rant about does not make it his intention.
"Their source is closed". Let's change it to "Their source is incompatible with BSD".
Because you know what? "Open Source GPL" is just as guilty of "closing off" BSD code as closed-source is.
What utter nonsense. Think about the scenario I outlined for a second. If they (the GPLd project) sees that you've made a change to your BSDd code that looks like theirs... that means they already HAVE YOUR CODE. Why would they then "sue" for copyright infringement when, for all intents and purposes, they were able to get their code back, from their point of view?
In short,anyone claiming BSD sucks over GPL because of locking up code is a hypocrite, because GPL locks up BSD code just as well as closed-source licenses do.
How does GPL lock up the code when you can ACQUIRE THE CODE? The point of GPL over closed source is that you can't SEE the closed source. Don't equivocate between the two when there are CLEAR differences.
Perhaps that's why Linus hates GPL enforcement
Or how about reading what he actually wrote and not just the loaded Slashdot summary of the article, which in itself is an incomplete summary of what he said in the mailing list?
People DO spend their days looking up at the sky just in case.
You missed the point about the American system. They can have the flimsiest of cases but they can still threaten to bankrupt you without trying to win.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, the compiler that Linux uses is now written in... C++ and in the process of converting C style code into C++ style where it makes sense. Because the C code was too unwieldy. Linus wrote his original dive log program in C + GTK, and then was forced to switch to Qt because GTK's attempt at OO made everything unmaintainable.
LLVM and Clang are written in C++ also.
Wrapping things in abstractions is necessary and is done in the Linux kernel all the time with macros, which are less maintainable and more impenetrable than templates. There certainly are things in the kernel that would benefit from being templated rather than macro'd.
I tried using some of the "safe pointer" stuff - depending on which one is chosen, there is a performance hit depending on which safety mechanism you choose. For example, the auto-deallocate safety net slows things down a lot, while bounds checking tends to be less of a problem.
With shared_ptr, the performance hit is with the reference count updating, so you should still pass a shared_ptr as a reference when possible.
With unique_ptr and the std containers (of movable types), I can't imagine the auto-deallocation would cost any more than manual deallocation in C since they are really just the equivalent of one manual deallocation call.
So your argument is that we must be hypocrites or "phony" or "selective" if we don't just lie down and take it.
How about this? We regret this route was taken, but that's what you get with CU.
Or how about this? We heard it was right that money = speech. But now that we've wisened up and decided to play your game against you, now you're all butthurt about us not lying down and taking it.
This is the point of the story where Reacher Gilt unveils his plans for new mobile clacks towers.
Yes, it was invented through a fear of learning and incompetence. It's literally designed to handhold the developer and limit the features that are useful, like multiple inheritance and operator overloading. And it certainly didn't (and I would argue, still doesn't) handle resource cleanup especially well - it's not just about freeing memory safely and reliably, which C++ does better than Java, even before smart pointers, but also other resources like locks, instead of relying on the programmer to remember to release locks etc.
Yes, Java has become a bedrock of enterprise development. But that's because enterprise development is boring and enterprises generally don't like to hire competent people or use state of the art technology. That's why enterprises require LTS versions of stuff and stick with J2EE instead of going to EE 7 or whatnot.
Just a few weeks ago, there was an article posted here about Java 8 features like streams and lambdas. The reaction? Most people hated it. Gee, you don't think fear of learning and incompetence may have something to do with it? I, as a C++ developer, learnt Java 8 streams and lambdas and was writing "enterprise code" in a day with it. It was super simple and made complex things super simple, and yet people were nitpicking the syntax only because they were unfamiliar with it but tried to hide their fear by saying "it sucks" etc. I only need to see the attitudes of programmers themselves regarding new features that you can see a culture of fear of learning and incompetence.
I certainly don't. It played a large part in cementing a culture where programmers learn to hate having to learn advanced parts of a programming language, and then, due to their own limitations and fear of learning, decide it's better to create yet another program language that has its own set of problems that either their parent language had solved in advanced features, or they reinvent the car crash from another language.
But if one does call in, the officials certainly would listen, check the footage for the player the tosser is claiming has an infraction, and decide if it's a prank or not.
Yes, and that's what also happens in science discussions too. People with the knowledge can decide if the person is "pranking" or otherwise unqualified and dismiss their claim. The thing about golf tournaments is that only golf enthusiasts would call in - it's self selecting. But with science, every precious snowflake has decided their ideas are worth as much as someone who dedicate their life to scientific research.
Nobody checks their claims, until the clamor builds to a roar.
Yeah they do. And every crackpot theory has been found wanting, and even debunked multiple times. But all a precious snowflake has to do is to disregard to explanations given and just repeat and repeat. So then the mainstream science crowd are pretty much justified in insulting the peope who, frankly, started the insults first by pretending that their uneducated opinions are equal to scientists.
Like I said, there is no "only" part of my claim. There were words before and after "only". Namely: "if not only". Do you know what "if not" means, when applied to to something?
Yeah? Well fuck the title. If you read only the title for you news, that's your problem.
I'm asking for proof of the claim that "Science" is the only major area:
And yet, as you clearly quoted, that WASN'T the claim, as I clearly said:
science is still the major, if not only
That doesn't claim it's the only. The clue is in the "if not only". Standard English sentence construction.
As these results are based entirely on statistical evidence, not on any direct link between tidal forces and actual quakes, they are quite uncertain and unproven.
Given that the article does not say tidal forces CAUSE quakes, this cushioning is completely unnecessary. They're only noting a suggestion of a link between tidal forces and the magnitude of the quake - not the occurrence/non-occurrence of a quake.
And something being "based entirely on statistical evidence" does not invalidate or weaken anything. It is the quality of the statistical evidence, not the mere use of statistical evidence, that would invalidate or weaken a claim.
Do the golfers, reviewers and tournament officers have to take every single call from a spectator seriously? Or does it count if some random tosser calls in and gives their opinion?
Because if the latter does count, then yes, science has that level of scrutiny. Because we see on Slashdot and in the media, every idiot can comment on Slashdot or appear on or call in to a show and give their opinion on scientific research, regardless of how educated or knowledgeable they are in the area. Everything from string theory to dark matter/energy to AGW to nuclear power or renewable energy.
You ask for a citation in the comments for an article that talks about scientists doing the exact introspection of science I'm talking about?
And yet it's still other scientists who are pushing back against the bad studies and bought results. Scientists are mere mortals, but science is still the major, if not only, area of life where that introspection happens.
That is why I Fucking Love Science.
They won't need it. But wouldn't it be better to help them be on the other side of the equation? ie, being a producer rather than a consumer?
Gotta love them sour grapes.
Don't mistake unfamiliarity with incomprehensible. It's better than for loops because the method names tells you the intention and the guarantees of that operation.
How about... read the fucking documentation? I'm a C++ guy and always lamented the fact that Java did not have an algorithms equivalent. Java 8 streams + lambdas are almost there and you can achieve complex things without nested loops.
Stop conflating your unfamiliarity with it being shit. It took me, a C++ guy, a day of getting used to it. If you can't wrap your head around that, you shouldn't be programming. It's easy stuff.
Lucy the Hominid climbing up a tree.
F, A, L, L, I, N, G
If you read Greg and Linus' actual comments in the mailing list, they're not against enforcement. They're against getting lawyers to do the enforcement. They prefer to enforce it by convincing the actual developers (not their employers or their lawyers) to comply.
If I cannot incorporate your code into my project without changing my license to match yours, then I have less freedom.
Instead of a gift, you have shared something you made with some strings attached.
Failure to appease your sense of entitlement is not reducing your freedom.
If the person did not open their code at all, which is the default state under copyright law, you had NO FREEDOM to begin with. So if someone opens their code up as GPL, by any measure, your freedom increased. Just because it didn't increase as much as you'd like doesn't mean your freedom is reduced. The default state of affairs is that you have NO freedom to use their code in the first place and that is the state you must start measuring from. Not the state where all code is public domain.
And no, GPL is not a gift. Open source is not a gift. No one is obligated to gift you anything.
What you wrote was completely irrelevant to what Linus was saying. My reply was pointing that irrelevance out, so I'm in no way obligated to address your point. Linus was clearly talking about the kernel, because THAT IS HIS JOB, when he was talking about fragmentation. Just because you want to strawman his quote to what you want to rant about does not make it his intention.
"Their source is closed". Let's change it to "Their source is incompatible with BSD". Because you know what? "Open Source GPL" is just as guilty of "closing off" BSD code as closed-source is.
What utter nonsense. Think about the scenario I outlined for a second. If they (the GPLd project) sees that you've made a change to your BSDd code that looks like theirs... that means they already HAVE YOUR CODE. Why would they then "sue" for copyright infringement when, for all intents and purposes, they were able to get their code back, from their point of view?
In short,anyone claiming BSD sucks over GPL because of locking up code is a hypocrite, because GPL locks up BSD code just as well as closed-source licenses do.
How does GPL lock up the code when you can ACQUIRE THE CODE? The point of GPL over closed source is that you can't SEE the closed source. Don't equivocate between the two when there are CLEAR differences.
Perhaps that's why Linus hates GPL enforcement
Or how about reading what he actually wrote and not just the loaded Slashdot summary of the article, which in itself is an incomplete summary of what he said in the mailing list?
People DO spend their days looking up at the sky just in case.
You missed the point about the American system. They can have the flimsiest of cases but they can still threaten to bankrupt you without trying to win.
Yes, it is still a fork.