A capitalist communist country. Oh wait, they've already thought of that and implemented it. You're a little late to the party, but welcome to the post-Deng China.
So what? Japan used to make poor quality rip offs too. One thing China has going for it is an underdeveloped IP litigation system. Standing up to China won't work. You need to stand up to your leeches - companies that abuse IP protection that stifles innovation.
You say that, but how many people in the West can truly be said to be innovators either? Most people in the West aren't Elon Musk or John Carmack. Then the social media and online games which only innovate new ways to waste people's time and money. And let's not talk about every web startup that disappears after two years.
Only if they come from a reference semantics background. If they came from a C background, they'd be using pointers to pass by reference any way. Also a lot of C++ is copy-on-write which makes the copying cheap.
C isn't that good for raw speed either. What you call weird about copy constructors actually makes sense if you understand value semantics rather than reference semantics. Using values can be faster than using pointers to values, and for concurrent/parallel operations it's often better to copy data then synchronizing on shared data.
Other than that, the default copy and move constructors are more than adequate in most cases anyway, especially if people composed their types with other types that already handle their own resource management.
So what language did you end up using to write highly portable generic libraries? Did performance also matter, or was it just enough that it was somewhat easier to use?
I would assume the code you were trying to port had a lot of legacy things and preprocessor macros everywhere.
Basically there's a lot of free talks on Youtube these days that give better advice for people who actually write code. Scott Meyers is great and all, but he admits that he doesn't actually write code. These days I look to people like Alex Stepanov and Sean Parent. I think Sean Parent's talk on rotate and partition alone is a more effective way to think about C++ than that whole business about OO.
Most of those land mines and hidden traps are inconsequential any way. They either stop your program from compiling, meaning you have to dig through compiler errors rather than customer logs, or they prevent the program being better optimized. They weren't end of the world scenarios and you wouldn't even really touch them unless you were in the business of writing highly portable generic libraries. In which case it matters that you understand the differences between hardware and software platforms regardless of what language you're writing in anyway.
In any case, your problem is one of perception. If you'd written a book on all the pitfalls and land mines of the language that you prefer, you'd soon realize how many ad hoc implicit rules you've internalized. But because you've dedicated your time to using the language, soaking up all the workarounds and tricks, it feels like your language is free from pitfalls.
There is no "money monopolization". If you create the money, you BECOME the government. Government isn't a planned takeover of money. Government emerges whenever there is a power imbalance over any kind of resource.
Contract law is not a private matter. Never has been. The clue is in the name - it is law. It is backed by threat of force if neither parties comply. You offer no evidence, just assertion, regarding transportation.
So what if you built a *company* from scratch. Your company can't exist without the other groundwork that already exist. Maybe they could arise without government. But so what? The infrastructure you are using DID arise by government, paid by taxes. If you refuse to pay taxes then you are stealing, by oppression, the people who have contributed to its construction and ongoing maintenance.
Who mentioned central planning? Having a government and central planning are orthogonal.
Money may emerge organically, but it isn't sustained organically. Who ever controls the creation of money BECOMES the government.
Really? Common law emerges iteratively? Then how come it took an English monarch to create the system of common law? What use is a consensus among arbitrators if one party decides to use physical force if it doesn't like the ruling? We've already been through this in history and the outcome is always the same.
You built your own company. Did you also invent your own currency whose value is accepted by everyone else? Did you also invent your own way to handle contract disputes without any legal framework? Do you sell anything that requires things to be transported across roads? Do you use the the phone or the internet to conduct business in any way?
Funny how you can build your own company from scratch without doing all those other things.
But stories with allegories only have wisdom insofar as that they have testable real world consequences. Stories whose allegories are neither here nor there have no knowledge until an actual link is shown.
If something is not testable (ie, has explanatory power), in what way is it "knowledge"? At most, it is knowledge of a story which has barely any relevance to anything outside of a story. It's just remembering stuff.
But is string theory actually simpler? We have to have world class mathematicians working on it and they're not getting anywhere. I would also add that explanations need to have the quality of excluding certain results. Does string theory adequately exclude anything? It seems it is still at the stage where the mathematics can be massaged to include anything not yet proven or disproven by current physics.
I think it was a good system when it started out. But now we have a more formalized scientific processes such that it is no longer difficult to reproduce so-called trade secrets. Someone else will eventually figure it out and publish the invention and/or improve upon it.
Someone more knowledgeable can answer this: isn't the "patent" in question just a description that could be found in any textbook on security and cryptography?
the supposedly rabid atheists around here who "bravely" stand up to those "totalitarian oppressor" church-ladies on here have a huge blind spot / sick fetish for the most hard-core Islamic fascim you can think of.
Then they're not really rabid, are they?
As for me, no, I'm like quite a lot of atheists who think Islam is the problem and there's no way to "fix" the religion. Nice attempt at trying to manufacture a hypocrisy where none exists, though.
Different tactics, same result. The US can ruin countries it has vested interests in. China, on the other hand, hasn't ruined as many countries as the US. China has done a lot more for African infrastructure and economic than the US.
Resource cleanup is useful both with and without generic programming. You can write typesafe (this has a specific definition), generic code with manual cleanup or with automatic cleanup.
But generic programming is not useful without resource cleanup. Generic programming algorithms, as I keep saying, relies on value semantics. If the algorithms are working on things that, say, have mutable state, then the generic algorithm breaks. Value semantics means type safe automatic resource cleanup becomes a necessity and thus should be included in the definition. People only resist it because it would mean their language can't be generic.
For example, a std::vector is typesafe, in that you can't have type violations (unless you screw with casting---C++ isn't the best example), generic in that it works for all T, but it won't clean up whatever those T*s point to.
No, that's why you store objects in vectors, not raw pointers. If you store objects in vectors, it will clean up all Ts, including smart pointers.
Plenty of languages implement generic programming with reference semantics just fine.
No, they don't. eg Java's generics aren't generic. They're just syntactic sugar for type casting.
Except it is, using the definitions of "generic" that everyone else uses.
"Everyone else" uses incomplete definitions of generic. It's incomplete given the experience of generic programming, namely in C++. Your "generic vector" does not allow generic algorithms to operate on them because of reference semantics and non-generic resource cleanup.
It's not about care it's about parameterization over types. And you can certainly parameterize over types in C, with sufficient effort.
The parametrization is incomplete if it doesn't include type-aware cleanup (and copy and move and even swap).
Picking one example resource out does not make my example incorrect. So well done for ignoring the point and making a tangential, irrelevant criticism rather than addressing the point I was making.
Really? But you thought nothing of reducing "resource management" down to a leaked memory strawman completely irrelevant to the larger picture of value semantics. I love when people accuse me of apparently doing something when they were the ones to actually do it first.
Type safety is something quite specific and doesn't in any definition I've seen include resource cleanup.
Which is my point. Just because it's overlooked such that it doesn't figure into other people's definitions doesn't mean it isn't necessary. We have a lot of experience with generic programming, and resource cleanup has been found to be a requirement.
not whether you run out of memory because you forgot to free something.
Memory cleanup is only a small part of resource cleanup. This point has been repeated to death.
But C idiomatically tends to work with pointers more, which are really reference semantics. I mean sure you might leak if you're not super-super careful but you can get type safety and genericity in C.
Which is why actual generic programming isn't possible in C, because it can't emulate value semantics for complex types. If you have to be super-super careful, then it's not generic.
Slashdot Mirror
A capitalist communist country. Oh wait, they've already thought of that and implemented it. You're a little late to the party, but welcome to the post-Deng China.
So what? Japan used to make poor quality rip offs too. One thing China has going for it is an underdeveloped IP litigation system. Standing up to China won't work. You need to stand up to your leeches - companies that abuse IP protection that stifles innovation.
You say that, but how many people in the West can truly be said to be innovators either? Most people in the West aren't Elon Musk or John Carmack. Then the social media and online games which only innovate new ways to waste people's time and money. And let's not talk about every web startup that disappears after two years.
The professor for my degree's C++ unit said he wouldn't touch the STL at all. This was 2005. By then STL had already stabilized quite a bit
Only if they come from a reference semantics background. If they came from a C background, they'd be using pointers to pass by reference any way. Also a lot of C++ is copy-on-write which makes the copying cheap.
C isn't that good for raw speed either. What you call weird about copy constructors actually makes sense if you understand value semantics rather than reference semantics. Using values can be faster than using pointers to values, and for concurrent/parallel operations it's often better to copy data then synchronizing on shared data.
Other than that, the default copy and move constructors are more than adequate in most cases anyway, especially if people composed their types with other types that already handle their own resource management.
The point is that they're not reference materials. If you want information, go to the reference. If you want to understand, you do the learning.
So what language did you end up using to write highly portable generic libraries? Did performance also matter, or was it just enough that it was somewhat easier to use?
I would assume the code you were trying to port had a lot of legacy things and preprocessor macros everywhere.
Basically there's a lot of free talks on Youtube these days that give better advice for people who actually write code. Scott Meyers is great and all, but he admits that he doesn't actually write code. These days I look to people like Alex Stepanov and Sean Parent. I think Sean Parent's talk on rotate and partition alone is a more effective way to think about C++ than that whole business about OO.
Most of those land mines and hidden traps are inconsequential any way. They either stop your program from compiling, meaning you have to dig through compiler errors rather than customer logs, or they prevent the program being better optimized. They weren't end of the world scenarios and you wouldn't even really touch them unless you were in the business of writing highly portable generic libraries. In which case it matters that you understand the differences between hardware and software platforms regardless of what language you're writing in anyway.
In any case, your problem is one of perception. If you'd written a book on all the pitfalls and land mines of the language that you prefer, you'd soon realize how many ad hoc implicit rules you've internalized. But because you've dedicated your time to using the language, soaking up all the workarounds and tricks, it feels like your language is free from pitfalls.
There is no "money monopolization". If you create the money, you BECOME the government. Government isn't a planned takeover of money. Government emerges whenever there is a power imbalance over any kind of resource.
Contract law is not a private matter. Never has been. The clue is in the name - it is law. It is backed by threat of force if neither parties comply. You offer no evidence, just assertion, regarding transportation.
So what if you built a *company* from scratch. Your company can't exist without the other groundwork that already exist. Maybe they could arise without government. But so what? The infrastructure you are using DID arise by government, paid by taxes. If you refuse to pay taxes then you are stealing, by oppression, the people who have contributed to its construction and ongoing maintenance.
Who mentioned central planning? Having a government and central planning are orthogonal.
Money may emerge organically, but it isn't sustained organically. Who ever controls the creation of money BECOMES the government.
Really? Common law emerges iteratively? Then how come it took an English monarch to create the system of common law? What use is a consensus among arbitrators if one party decides to use physical force if it doesn't like the ruling? We've already been through this in history and the outcome is always the same.
You built your own company. Did you also invent your own currency whose value is accepted by everyone else? Did you also invent your own way to handle contract disputes without any legal framework? Do you sell anything that requires things to be transported across roads? Do you use the the phone or the internet to conduct business in any way?
Funny how you can build your own company from scratch without doing all those other things.
But stories with allegories only have wisdom insofar as that they have testable real world consequences. Stories whose allegories are neither here nor there have no knowledge until an actual link is shown.
If something is not testable (ie, has explanatory power), in what way is it "knowledge"? At most, it is knowledge of a story which has barely any relevance to anything outside of a story. It's just remembering stuff.
The uselessness issue is the same problem as the testability issue, and so the same argument against it is similarly invalid.
But is string theory actually simpler? We have to have world class mathematicians working on it and they're not getting anywhere. I would also add that explanations need to have the quality of excluding certain results. Does string theory adequately exclude anything? It seems it is still at the stage where the mathematics can be massaged to include anything not yet proven or disproven by current physics.
Really? Then why do I see more pre-emptive "beware the SJWs" than actual supposed SJW hate? It's almost as if there's Freudian projection going on.
Funny how in a "haters gonna hate" comment, it has a sideswipe at "SJWs" for no apparent reason.
I think it was a good system when it started out. But now we have a more formalized scientific processes such that it is no longer difficult to reproduce so-called trade secrets. Someone else will eventually figure it out and publish the invention and/or improve upon it.
Someone more knowledgeable can answer this: isn't the "patent" in question just a description that could be found in any textbook on security and cryptography?
My other bookmark manager is Google.
the supposedly rabid atheists around here who "bravely" stand up to those "totalitarian oppressor" church-ladies on here have a huge blind spot / sick fetish for the most hard-core Islamic fascim you can think of.
Then they're not really rabid, are they?
As for me, no, I'm like quite a lot of atheists who think Islam is the problem and there's no way to "fix" the religion. Nice attempt at trying to manufacture a hypocrisy where none exists, though.
Different tactics, same result. The US can ruin countries it has vested interests in. China, on the other hand, hasn't ruined as many countries as the US. China has done a lot more for African infrastructure and economic than the US.
Resource cleanup is useful both with and without generic programming. You can write typesafe (this has a specific definition), generic code with manual cleanup or with automatic cleanup.
But generic programming is not useful without resource cleanup. Generic programming algorithms, as I keep saying, relies on value semantics. If the algorithms are working on things that, say, have mutable state, then the generic algorithm breaks. Value semantics means type safe automatic resource cleanup becomes a necessity and thus should be included in the definition. People only resist it because it would mean their language can't be generic.
For example, a std::vector is typesafe, in that you can't have type violations (unless you screw with casting---C++ isn't the best example), generic in that it works for all T, but it won't clean up whatever those T*s point to.
No, that's why you store objects in vectors, not raw pointers. If you store objects in vectors, it will clean up all Ts, including smart pointers.
Plenty of languages implement generic programming with reference semantics just fine.
No, they don't. eg Java's generics aren't generic. They're just syntactic sugar for type casting.
Except it is, using the definitions of "generic" that everyone else uses.
"Everyone else" uses incomplete definitions of generic. It's incomplete given the experience of generic programming, namely in C++. Your "generic vector" does not allow generic algorithms to operate on them because of reference semantics and non-generic resource cleanup.
It's not about care it's about parameterization over types. And you can certainly parameterize over types in C, with sufficient effort.
The parametrization is incomplete if it doesn't include type-aware cleanup (and copy and move and even swap).
Picking one example resource out does not make my example incorrect. So well done for ignoring the point and making a tangential, irrelevant criticism rather than addressing the point I was making.
Really? But you thought nothing of reducing "resource management" down to a leaked memory strawman completely irrelevant to the larger picture of value semantics. I love when people accuse me of apparently doing something when they were the ones to actually do it first.
Type safety is something quite specific and doesn't in any definition I've seen include resource cleanup.
Which is my point. Just because it's overlooked such that it doesn't figure into other people's definitions doesn't mean it isn't necessary. We have a lot of experience with generic programming, and resource cleanup has been found to be a requirement.
not whether you run out of memory because you forgot to free something.
Memory cleanup is only a small part of resource cleanup. This point has been repeated to death.
But C idiomatically tends to work with pointers more, which are really reference semantics. I mean sure you might leak if you're not super-super careful but you can get type safety and genericity in C.
Which is why actual generic programming isn't possible in C, because it can't emulate value semantics for complex types. If you have to be super-super careful, then it's not generic.