I wrote about it in another post, but I think I will repeat it here:
The answers lies in the computation of Chaitin's omega.
My simplified explanation is this: - Axioms are always invented. Theorems that derive from this axioms are discovered. - To get useful results, you sometimes have to invent as much axioms as you get theorems. And sometimes few axioms give you an amazing lot of useful theorems.
I was also thinking about Chaitin's omega, however, your post is so confuse I could never understand any of it unless I already knew about Chaitin theory.
My take is this: - Axioms are always invented. Theorems that derive from this axioms are discovered. - To get useful results, you sometimes have to invent as much axioms as you get theorems. And sometimes few axioms give you an amazing lot of useful theorems.
But my view (and all my real life friends share it) is that "...And Justice for All" and "Metallica" are their best albums and of course our favourites.
Load and Reload sucked big time and after those albums I never bothered to listen more of them.
Java beats C++ only if you have to create every single object in C++ with the new operator. I have to concede that the JVM memory allocator is amazing, and the new operator in C++ is not as good as it should be. But I also have to note that the benchmarks I have seen use C++ like if the stack was not there.
If you can put all those objects in the stack, C++ easily outperforms Java by a factor of 20-60.
So it actually depends on how many objects you need to create in the heap and how many can reside in the stack. In other words it depends on the program you're writing.
In this case it's more like the difference between driving a stick shift and an automatic.
You get the most of the machine if you use a stick shift, and if you race, that's essential. But you need lots of practise and an amazing concentration.
If you just want to drive home, an automatic is of course more convenient.
And the market analogy is that currently most cars are automatic.
One criticism of C++ is that by automatically handling the destruction of objects when they go out of scope, it can lead to a feeling of false security to programmers who assume that because their objects are destroyed, that all resources are properly freed. If the resource is memory, that only happens when they confuse the stack with the heap.
The day is coming when no one in their right mind will write an entire OS in C or C++, or even an entire OS kernel -- depending on your definition of "kernel". I think this is the mindset behind a big part of the Vista delay. "We will write the OS in.NET. We will deliver it much faster that way". Yeah sure.
After all, in his own words (taken from http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/31/why-were-suing-facebook-for-25-million-in-statutory-damages/):
My own personal brand has risen over the years as well to the point where I believe I can say without hubris that I am a very important person. Forbes recently named me No. 2 on their list of web celebrities, for example, and Business Week says Im one of the 25 most influential people on the web. Ive also appeared in numerous JibJab videos.
To me it is actually library code that Somebody Else gets to maintain.
Also, the arguments in most (if not all) wxWidgets macros are function names, class names and predefined constants.
Not your usual "Ohh no macros are bad, would somebody please think of the children" macros. Also: macros are ALL CAPS and function names are not. And it is stated clearly in the documentation. I mean, you really try hard to scare young programmers don't you?
Example (the only macros I have to actually use, all others are optional):
Header file
class clipApp: public wxApp { public:
virtual bool OnInit(); };
DECLARE_APP(clipApp)
Source file
IMPLEMENT_APP(clipApp)
bool clipApp::OnInit() { //Whatever the App does. }
The other macros used in wxWidgets are for binding functions to control events, but I don't use them, as I prefer to use the Connect function. They are however necessary if you use a visual editor, just like with MFC.
Finally macros are used for implementing RTTI in any C++ compiler (not just the most recent ones). This is because wxWidgets exists long before the modern C++ standard appeared. As it compiles fast and runs fast I don't have any problem with it being macros.
And that's all. Those are the macros I remember using in wxWidgets. No unintended consequences or side effects that I'm aware of.
wxWidgets uses C macros to do function binding to controls, QT has a metacompiler extension to do the same and windows forms are restricted to one platform so I don't plan to use them. Mac counts.
QT is more mature and more commercial but doesn't use native controls in any platform. wxWidgets uses native controls but has ugly database classes.
For pure GUI related stuff wxWidgets has superb sizers that adjusts every control to your window/panel/container, while the others are more drag&drop oriented just like VisualBasic.
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote about it in another post, but I think I will repeat it here:
The answers lies in the computation of Chaitin's omega.
My simplified explanation is this:
- Axioms are always invented. Theorems that derive from this axioms are discovered.
- To get useful results, you sometimes have to invent as much axioms as you get theorems. And sometimes few axioms give you an amazing lot of useful theorems.
So the real answer is YMMV.
I was also thinking about Chaitin's omega, however, your post is so confuse I could never understand any of it unless I already knew about Chaitin theory.
;)
My take is this:
- Axioms are always invented. Theorems that derive from this axioms are discovered.
- To get useful results, you sometimes have to invent as much axioms as you get theorems. And sometimes few axioms give you an amazing lot of useful theorems.
So the real answer is YMMV.
That's what I wanted to hear.
I don't care much about the Napster thing, but I do care a lot about the Load and reLoad thing.
If only their new songs were as good as the AJFA ones, I'm sold.
That's your view, and is very valid.
But my view (and all my real life friends share it) is that "...And Justice for All" and "Metallica" are their best albums and of course our favourites.
Load and Reload sucked big time and after those albums I never bothered to listen more of them.
That's why I use C++ with wxWidgets.
Java beats C++ only if you have to create every single object in C++ with the new operator. I have to concede that the JVM memory allocator is amazing, and the new operator in C++ is not as good as it should be. But I also have to note that the benchmarks I have seen use C++ like if the stack was not there.
If you can put all those objects in the stack, C++ easily outperforms Java by a factor of 20-60.
So it actually depends on how many objects you need to create in the heap and how many can reside in the stack. In other words it depends on the program you're writing.
I remember reading about it in some blog about a year ago, or perhaps more.
I'm sorry because I don't have the link right now. There's too much noise in google for the string "Vista C#"
In this case it's more like the difference between driving a stick shift and an automatic.
You get the most of the machine if you use a stick shift, and if you race, that's essential. But you need lots of practise and an amazing concentration.
If you just want to drive home, an automatic is of course more convenient.
And the market analogy is that currently most cars are automatic.
I think the real reason is that C has a stable ABI, while C++ changes the ABI from time to time.
Also, several C compilers can share the same ABI, the same can not be said of C++ compilers.
I think you hit the nail in the head.
The reason for C/C++ to exist is as a competitive advantage for any company that uses it to implement some software where performance is important.
I use Opera since 2000 and performance has been a significant part of the reason I do. Opera is written in C++.
You're right about the pricing theory.
But here Intel processors are top tier and AMD is trying to position their processors in the Intel mid tier.
Too close in pricing to Intel processors, and is Intel who benefits from AMD pricing.
I don't know why they don't mod you up.
You're right and in fact I want a golden ratio tablet mac in the future.
That would be AWESOME!!
ON the contrary, I think that future generations will be a lot less judgemental, basically because all of them will have a semi public life.
In 50 years they will laugh at our "ooh no somebody just had sex" political scandals.
Unless we get conquered by Muslims or something.
That's not a budget laptop.
However, we all are waiting for the iTablet o Mac Tablet or whatever that the Air is not.
Yes the quote sounds quite different. However, caring too much about the fidelity of the quote to judge its validity is an argument of authority.
Personally, I think that this version is quite good and has a very good point, regardless of whoever said it.
Sorry but I play racing simulators like rFactor and LFS and I plan to play Starcraft 2. I will buy it as soon as it launches.
There's NOTHING like that in a playstation 3.
I would put the quotation marks around "add value" instead of adding them around "interpreting".
They are obviously interpreting the numbers.
How the hell can they be adding value is way beyond me.
Adding price, may be, but VALUE ????
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/
The scientific facts in this movie are... simply not facts. But the visuals, man what beautiful sun images this movie has.
Also, the arguments in most (if not all) wxWidgets macros are function names, class names and predefined constants.
Not your usual "Ohh no macros are bad, would somebody please think of the children" macros. Also: macros are ALL CAPS and function names are not. And it is stated clearly in the documentation. I mean, you really try hard to scare young programmers don't you?
Example (the only macros I have to actually use, all others are optional):
Header file Source file The other macros used in wxWidgets are for binding functions to control events, but I don't use them, as I prefer to use the Connect function. They are however necessary if you use a visual editor, just like with MFC.
Those macros look like this: Finally macros are used for implementing RTTI in any C++ compiler (not just the most recent ones). This is because wxWidgets exists long before the modern C++ standard appeared. As it compiles fast and runs fast I don't have any problem with it being macros.
And that's all. Those are the macros I remember using in wxWidgets. No unintended consequences or side effects that I'm aware of.
They actually simplify stuff.
OTOH, those are complex macros written by the wxWidgets developers.
I don't think any of my C macros can simplify anything.
wxWidgets uses C macros to do function binding to controls, QT has a metacompiler extension to do the same and windows forms are restricted to one platform so I don't plan to use them. Mac counts.
QT is more mature and more commercial but doesn't use native controls in any platform. wxWidgets uses native controls but has ugly database classes.
For pure GUI related stuff wxWidgets has superb sizers that adjusts every control to your window/panel/container, while the others are more drag&drop oriented just like VisualBasic.