If you use any part of the standard C++ library, you're using templates. And if you're not using iterators, I'd expect you're writing too many error-prone loops that are already implemented by the STL algorithms. If you're using any form of smart pointer, you're using template. If you're not using a smart pointer or an STL container, you most probably have leaks. And you're definitely not using lambda functions which are useful in any language.
The idea that Java and C programmers should be able to read the code is ridiculous, not least of which Java recently just got its own version of lambda functions and streams API. Programs should not be written in a dumbed down subset of ANY language for the lowest denominator. There comes a point where you simply must learn the advanced or new parts of a language, be it C++ or Java or Javascript, nowadays. In the case of those three languages, the new parts added in recent years simplify what was previously complicated code. By sticking to an old subset, you are actually keeping your code more complicated than it needs to be.
Rejecting a new keyword makes sense. It doesn't reveal any bad design. Adding new keywords increases the risk of breaking existing code that uses common English words. Not many people want to appreciate this, it seems. You can't in one breath criticize C++ for being complicated at the same time as criticizing it for not complicating things with new keywords.
It took so long because the signal is mind-bogglingly weak. No detector was sensitive enough or well designed enough to rule out false positives. The LIGO experiment is much more sensitive and a lot of effort put in to detect false positives (including some social engineering). The detectors also underwent a very extensive testing phase before they were considered ready. We also weren't sure how frequent these events were, but now we are expecting a few more events.
But, it must be said indirect evidence of gravitational waves already were detected through the observation of two pulsars orbiting and closing in on each other at a rate predicted by the theory.
How can they extinguish an open source project they don't own? Do you really think the FreeBSD owners are stupid enough to say "oops, we accidentally accepted these kernel changes and our entire stack won't compile anymore, I guess we have to abandon it"?
The news is the news. Your criteria of what is news is not other's criteria. Stop demanding people follow your categorization. You are free to ignore things you don't want to read about.
The property sector does not add to the economy. It's literally not producing anything. It's about sitting and waiting until market forces produces a favourable price for you and then selling it off. Not only is nothing added to the economy. The inflated selling price actually takes away from the economy because real resources are used to pay for the fantasy that the property has increased in value. The regularity in which the property market bubbles and pops, damaging the economy in the process, undoes any good that adding housing to the economy does, probably more. It's easier to destroy than to create and sustain. Furthermore, adding housing is not in the interest of the property sector because they can only get inflated selling prices by limiting supply, and we see that with the lobbying to make building regulations nonsensical and expensive.
The credit crisis was precisely about people who could have lived on a UBI, but were instead sold an impossible real estate riches scheme. I don't blame them for being taken in. I blame the fantasy selling machine - they had to believe their own fairy tale.
Or maybe people will stop looking at rental and investment properties as a foolproof road to riches scheme because it is easier to get a basic income. The housing sector adds nothing to the economy except a cycle of ruin. Society will benefit economically just because people can start working on things that really matter instead of cashing in on economic suffering.
Yeah, but what if bugs are the result of living in simulation? What if "base reality" is so much more such that it is possible for mathematics to be both complete and correct and has solutions for the halting problem? That would actually make it possible to eradicate all bugs in a system.
Also, the incompatibility between Einsteinian, classical and quantum physics is a pretty big "discrepancy" in the universe, and there may be more exotic physics to be found to explain Dark Matter and Energy.
Yes. It's called a liberal education. The more things children learn, the more they can learn. Stop projecting your stupid fear of learning onto children who actually can do it. We adults forget how completely open we were as children.
Useful to a fraction of the audience NOW. Why don't you go away and think about why your attitude that education should cater for things as they are NOW and not as they will probably be in the future and think about how stupid that plan is.
The vast majority of people don't want to code and will never have to code.
And how will they find that out unless they take a few classes? If we approached learning anything only we we become interested in it, then it will never happen because it would be too late by then.
Why can't "learning to write simple programs" be a basic as well? Why are you imagining "learning to code" as doing the enterprise or engineering level from the outset?
But your previous comment doesn't address any of that. You concern was about the relatives of the victim and because they suffered the affects of the death, the person who did it should die for it. And you were more concerned that people had to pay to keep them in "cushy" conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
The Space Shuttle program was $196 billion for 135 missions.
Maybe you're expecting instant conversion. But things take time to be accepted.
Plenty of evidence it does work.
Doing these reports every year is necessary because people keep believing otherwise.
It's a little bit RISCy...
Don't know what alternative history you reside in, but C# was created because Sun refused their changes to JAVA.
If you use any part of the standard C++ library, you're using templates. And if you're not using iterators, I'd expect you're writing too many error-prone loops that are already implemented by the STL algorithms. If you're using any form of smart pointer, you're using template. If you're not using a smart pointer or an STL container, you most probably have leaks. And you're definitely not using lambda functions which are useful in any language.
The idea that Java and C programmers should be able to read the code is ridiculous, not least of which Java recently just got its own version of lambda functions and streams API. Programs should not be written in a dumbed down subset of ANY language for the lowest denominator. There comes a point where you simply must learn the advanced or new parts of a language, be it C++ or Java or Javascript, nowadays. In the case of those three languages, the new parts added in recent years simplify what was previously complicated code. By sticking to an old subset, you are actually keeping your code more complicated than it needs to be.
Rejecting a new keyword makes sense. It doesn't reveal any bad design. Adding new keywords increases the risk of breaking existing code that uses common English words. Not many people want to appreciate this, it seems. You can't in one breath criticize C++ for being complicated at the same time as criticizing it for not complicating things with new keywords.
C++ is only complicated for the implementers. C++ is easier now for the users.
It took so long because the signal is mind-bogglingly weak. No detector was sensitive enough or well designed enough to rule out false positives. The LIGO experiment is much more sensitive and a lot of effort put in to detect false positives (including some social engineering). The detectors also underwent a very extensive testing phase before they were considered ready. We also weren't sure how frequent these events were, but now we are expecting a few more events.
But, it must be said indirect evidence of gravitational waves already were detected through the observation of two pulsars orbiting and closing in on each other at a rate predicted by the theory.
That's the most stupidest thing I've read.
How can they extinguish an open source project they don't own? Do you really think the FreeBSD owners are stupid enough to say "oops, we accidentally accepted these kernel changes and our entire stack won't compile anymore, I guess we have to abandon it"?
Telling people to STOP demanding other people in the FIRST PLACE is not hypocrisy. Someone has to say it.
The news is the news. Your criteria of what is news is not other's criteria. Stop demanding people follow your categorization. You are free to ignore things you don't want to read about.
The property sector does not add to the economy. It's literally not producing anything. It's about sitting and waiting until market forces produces a favourable price for you and then selling it off. Not only is nothing added to the economy. The inflated selling price actually takes away from the economy because real resources are used to pay for the fantasy that the property has increased in value. The regularity in which the property market bubbles and pops, damaging the economy in the process, undoes any good that adding housing to the economy does, probably more. It's easier to destroy than to create and sustain. Furthermore, adding housing is not in the interest of the property sector because they can only get inflated selling prices by limiting supply, and we see that with the lobbying to make building regulations nonsensical and expensive.
The credit crisis was precisely about people who could have lived on a UBI, but were instead sold an impossible real estate riches scheme. I don't blame them for being taken in. I blame the fantasy selling machine - they had to believe their own fairy tale.
Beat me to it.
No one gives 70% to the state. Learn how progressive taxation works.
Or maybe people will stop looking at rental and investment properties as a foolproof road to riches scheme because it is easier to get a basic income. The housing sector adds nothing to the economy except a cycle of ruin. Society will benefit economically just because people can start working on things that really matter instead of cashing in on economic suffering.
Yeah, but what if bugs are the result of living in simulation? What if "base reality" is so much more such that it is possible for mathematics to be both complete and correct and has solutions for the halting problem? That would actually make it possible to eradicate all bugs in a system.
Also, the incompatibility between Einsteinian, classical and quantum physics is a pretty big "discrepancy" in the universe, and there may be more exotic physics to be found to explain Dark Matter and Energy.
Yes. It's called a liberal education. The more things children learn, the more they can learn. Stop projecting your stupid fear of learning onto children who actually can do it. We adults forget how completely open we were as children.
Useful to a fraction of the audience NOW. Why don't you go away and think about why your attitude that education should cater for things as they are NOW and not as they will probably be in the future and think about how stupid that plan is.
And why can't programming ALSO be used to teach them that?
The vast majority of people don't want to code and will never have to code.
And how will they find that out unless they take a few classes? If we approached learning anything only we we become interested in it, then it will never happen because it would be too late by then.
Why can't "learning to write simple programs" be a basic as well? Why are you imagining "learning to code" as doing the enterprise or engineering level from the outset?
And how do you teach people how to be creative thinkers? How do you teach them to be problem solvers?
But your previous comment doesn't address any of that. You concern was about the relatives of the victim and because they suffered the affects of the death, the person who did it should die for it. And you were more concerned that people had to pay to keep them in "cushy" conditions.