Modify this post up to 99- ROTFL level humorous.
When I read it, I spat coffee out all over my girlfriend, (or at least the space where my girlfriend would be if there wasn't an SGI monitor there).
Although I agree with you, your counter argument is specious: You're probably referring to the person (or one of them, since it's written in "The C++ Language" too) who said that all the examples of code in K&R are valid C++. That does not mean that they're OO, just that well-written C code is also valid C++ code.
It *is* a misconception that you can't do OO _DESIGN_ in C. You talk about requirements for an OO language. Yes, OK, we admit C isn't an OO language, but that doesn't mean you can't do OO things in it with workarounds. B. Meyer points this out very well in his otherwise god-awful Eiffel Advocacy book. Early versions of C++ were just preprocessors which generated C, and even today lots of OO languages compile down to C.
>>You can't do things (like) derive a new type of struct from another type of struct.
If you're talking about C++ style inheritance then
maybe you should check out how C++ stores derived classes internally before posting such nonsense.
>>you can write code in a non OO language that looks a little like OO code, but its not gonna behave the same way.
See point above about early C++ "compilers" and modern OO langs that compile down to C. (It all ends up as assembly after being compiled you know).
I think protection of this sort will cut down most on small to medium businesses pirating MS products and that's a damn good thing.
Individuals who want to use windows will resort to downloading dodgy cracked copies and suchlike, while businesses will be loath to use something which could say, for example, have a trojan or orifice in it, and for which they have to actually (shock horror) search for on sites with porny pictures.
I work for a small software company, writing case-management software for solicitors, and the companies we write software for, despite being in the legal biz think nothing of buying one copy of win2000, 1 copy of office 2000, then installing them on 100 or so workstations. This is downright fucking theft!
What particularly makes me sick about their behaviour is that these companies have an annual turn-over of millions of pounds- they can easily afford to buy the requisite number of licenses, but they're too tight. This annoys me *almost* as much as those companies who keep junk faxing us with offers of microsoft cds and licenses which turn out to be pirate. (Their licenses turn out to be just colour photocopies!).
I am not biased. I like certain MS products, true; I love windows 2000, and I love Office 2000, I think DirectX (from a standardization perspective) was a damn fine idea, also COM/ACTIVE-X is phenomenal. (yeah so you have corba in linux but it's nowhere near as widely used). Visual Studio.NET (esp. when C# is used) is the best thing MS have EVER written- it blows any linux development environment/library/language out of the water and into near-Earth Orbit.
I also however love linux. Linux is different to Win2000, but I love both. There's actually nothing I need Linux for, since I play games, do office stuff and program in win32, but I appreciate the beautiful architecture of linux- treating it like a text-only adventure game as I discover the wonderful world of pipes which work, a decent command shell and so on.
So, if you don't, like me love lots of things MS have done recently, and don't want to use Windows, then don't use Windows- use linux or QNX or Plan9 or whatever, just don't bloody moan on about MS' evil world domination- you're not forced into it. And especially don't bitch about how much you hate microsoft, but then download a dodgy copy of Whistler anyway, and go round with a bloated head because you're so damn clever you get one over on MS, you're so 3l337. yeah.... whatever. And to all those people who moan on about "Windows Tax" on new machines, well duh! Build your own machine you idiots! If you're qualified enough to choose linux over windows and think yourself clever enough to be able to use it, then what's hard about plugging a few components in a mboard and fitting it into a case? Even a cappuchino (sic) monkey can put a GeForce in an AGP slot.
When *that* bootdisk first got out on the net I read a lot of the sites which sprung out of nowhere giving tips on illegal game CD burning and also DC programming. (The reason I was interested is so I could play import games, and if you don't believe that, tough luck, it's true, there are still a few of us left who have scruples).
Anyway, one issue which kept coming up on the boards was the supposed death of the GDROM unit after playing CD games for a while. Lots of people posted saying it had actually happened to them, and people tried to explain it in terms of the drive's access pattern, i.e. they said that the original games were written in an optimized way for sequential access, and with home burns the reads would be skipping about more...
What I want to know is, was this all covert FUD from Sega agents, or is it really true?
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, if you can understand LISP you should have no trouble understanding ANYTHING.
(And I say that, me the big LISP fan).
>>I just think gtk should have been C++, since it essentially is
Yeah, but as the authors point out, there are some systems for which there isn't a C++ compiler; by writing it in C you get ultra portability.
And, yeah, I love GTK too. It's really well designed, IMHO.
Modify this post up to 99- ROTFL level humorous. When I read it, I spat coffee out all over my girlfriend, (or at least the space where my girlfriend would be if there wasn't an SGI monitor there).
Although I agree with you, your counter argument is specious: You're probably referring to the person (or one of them, since it's written in "The C++ Language" too) who said that all the examples of code in K&R are valid C++. That does not mean that they're OO, just that well-written C code is also valid C++ code.
It *is* a misconception that you can't do OO _DESIGN_ in C. You talk about requirements for an OO language. Yes, OK, we admit C isn't an OO language, but that doesn't mean you can't do OO things in it with workarounds. B. Meyer points this out very well in his otherwise god-awful Eiffel Advocacy book. Early versions of C++ were just preprocessors which generated C, and even today lots of OO languages compile down to C. >>You can't do things (like) derive a new type of struct from another type of struct. If you're talking about C++ style inheritance then maybe you should check out how C++ stores derived classes internally before posting such nonsense. >>you can write code in a non OO language that looks a little like OO code, but its not gonna behave the same way. See point above about early C++ "compilers" and modern OO langs that compile down to C. (It all ends up as assembly after being compiled you know).
Ever hear of a thing called CLOS?
I think protection of this sort will cut down most on small to medium businesses pirating MS products and that's a damn good thing.
Individuals who want to use windows will resort to downloading dodgy cracked copies and suchlike, while businesses will be loath to use something which could say, for example, have a trojan or orifice in it, and for which they have to actually (shock horror) search for on sites with porny pictures.
I work for a small software company, writing case-management software for solicitors, and the companies we write software for, despite being in the legal biz think nothing of buying one copy of win2000, 1 copy of office 2000, then installing them on 100 or so workstations. This is downright fucking theft!
What particularly makes me sick about their behaviour is that these companies have an annual turn-over of millions of pounds- they can easily afford to buy the requisite number of licenses, but they're too tight. This annoys me *almost* as much as those companies who keep junk faxing us with offers of microsoft cds and licenses which turn out to be pirate. (Their licenses turn out to be just colour photocopies!).
I am not biased. I like certain MS products, true; I love windows 2000, and I love Office 2000, I think DirectX (from a standardization perspective) was a damn fine idea, also COM/ACTIVE-X is phenomenal. (yeah so you have corba in linux but it's nowhere near as widely used). Visual Studio.NET (esp. when C# is used) is the best thing MS have EVER written- it blows any linux development environment/library/language out of the water and into near-Earth Orbit.
I also however love linux. Linux is different to Win2000, but I love both. There's actually nothing I need Linux for, since I play games, do office stuff and program in win32, but I appreciate the beautiful architecture of linux- treating it like a text-only adventure game as I discover the wonderful world of pipes which work, a decent command shell and so on.
So, if you don't, like me love lots of things MS have done recently, and don't want to use Windows, then don't use Windows- use linux or QNX or Plan9 or whatever, just don't bloody moan on about MS' evil world domination- you're not forced into it. And especially don't bitch about how much you hate microsoft, but then download a dodgy copy of Whistler anyway, and go round with a bloated head because you're so damn clever you get one over on MS, you're so 3l337. yeah.... whatever. And to all those people who moan on about "Windows Tax" on new machines, well duh! Build your own machine you idiots! If you're qualified enough to choose linux over windows and think yourself clever enough to be able to use it, then what's hard about plugging a few components in a mboard and fitting it into a case? Even a cappuchino (sic) monkey can put a GeForce in an AGP slot.
When *that* bootdisk first got out on the net I read a lot of the sites which sprung out of nowhere giving tips on illegal game CD burning and also DC programming. (The reason I was interested is so I could play import games, and if you don't believe that, tough luck, it's true, there are still a few of us left who have scruples).
Anyway, one issue which kept coming up on the boards was the supposed death of the GDROM unit after playing CD games for a while. Lots of people posted saying it had actually happened to them, and people tried to explain it in terms of the drive's access pattern, i.e. they said that the original games were written in an optimized way for sequential access, and with home burns the reads would be skipping about more...
What I want to know is, was this all covert FUD from Sega agents, or is it really true?
Actually console games can and do crash. I had Grandia on the Playstation freeze up quite a few times while in the battle screen...