Then they hired many of the CMU programmers, and continued developing it long after CMU had finished with it. And all that development (for example, IOKit), is open source.
Two completely incompatible OSs? You do realize that Carbon and Cocoa are a shared source base, and that some of Cocoa is implemented in Carbon, and vice versa.
As the article contains a picture of a girl, there will be untold numbers of comments about that girl, as this is/. So, as a convenience, please put them up as replies to this post, to save everyone else the redundant reading. Thanks.
People taking responsibility for their own actions? On computers? The number of people on the internet would drop down to nothing, which would be OK except for the fact that they all help subsidize the costs of our broadband!!
Rupert's trying to push his media into new media. Yeah it's coerced beyond all belief, but it's how old media survives. And plenty will watch, just to know the soft feel of a warm tube once more.
Besides, 15 minute spots are probably the sweet-spot, and that's just waiting on technology to catch up to make it feasible.
That was already answered a while back. It has to do with the speed of rotation, combined with the height of the average table. If you were at a different height, the toast would fall butter side up.
Yeah, a smell of bad design, but that'll happen as you build lots of code, *then* have requirements change:-)
I agree. The biggest problem C++ has is that there are lots of jackasses who feel that they need their language to tell them how to program, and they see C++ as a land of anarchy & danger instead of power & flexibility.
if it matters which part of the code had the error, then use separate try blocks for each part. In real life, most exception handling code DOESN'T care which function called it, or can tell from the exception type. As we've got more expressiveness than the value for ERRNO, we can do that here.
essentially a quote of linus's comments from the 1992 test. boo hoo, he tested a pre-standard language and a pre-standard compiler (which was honestly crap on C++ until very very recently).
You do realize that RTTI is a pointer comparison? And that the costs of exceptions are easily paid for in the reduced number of error checking code that tries to handle manually (and at every function) what exceptions do automatically. Not to mention that it gives the compiler more knowledge of what's going on, and thus more opportunity to optimize.
those vtable structs and pointers can now be validated by the compiler.
C++ also lets you insert code that's needed yet easy to forget, like deleting resources (ala smart pointers) both at the end of its use or when an exception is called.
And anyone who's actually read more than a quick "C++: classes and templates" book will know where and how the compiler inserts code for you. It's all very well defined, and also done only upon times which become obvious to an experienced programmer.
That's why you don't force the error checking to be scattered and disorganized all over the place; you structure and design it with the rest of the system.
Of course not. That's why we use assembler... oh wait...
Besides, the abstractions are already there, only they're not supported by the language. Look at device drivers: they're polymorphic classes, only that there's no checking that the compiler can do.
Nope. It's a condition that the throwing code couldn't handle. Someone else can handle it.
Classic example: a method calls another that calls another that calls openfile() for a temp file, which fails. the lower two methods don't care, and the toplevel one can give the user a proper error message and clean up.
People wonder why software is so hard to test, does so poorly on error handling, yet complain whenever we add mechanisms to languages to help.
Slashdot Mirror
Then they hired many of the CMU programmers, and continued developing it long after CMU had finished with it. And all that development (for example, IOKit), is open source.
Two completely incompatible OSs? You do realize that Carbon and Cocoa are a shared source base, and that some of Cocoa is implemented in Carbon, and vice versa.
As the article contains a picture of a girl, there will be untold numbers of comments about that girl, as this is /. So, as a convenience, please put them up as replies to this post, to save everyone else the redundant reading. Thanks.
People taking responsibility for their own actions? On computers? The number of people on the internet would drop down to nothing, which would be OK except for the fact that they all help subsidize the costs of our broadband!!
Hence Cobalt.
We'll see what my nukes say about that! ha!
Rupert's trying to push his media into new media. Yeah it's coerced beyond all belief, but it's how old media survives. And plenty will watch, just to know the soft feel of a warm tube once more.
Besides, 15 minute spots are probably the sweet-spot, and that's just waiting on technology to catch up to make it feasible.
Yeah, it's called 'LISP'.
That last clause proves you're lying. So, has motorola lowered themselves to astoturfing??
This works fine for me:
while (true) {
say "No thank you"
}
Don't hold a conversation. They're not, they're reading from a script. Do the same.
They can just take ours, we're not using it anymore...
XBox 2 PPC, hell that's been known for a while.
That was already answered a while back. It has to do with the speed of rotation, combined with the height of the average table. If you were at a different height, the toast would fall butter side up.
An instance of type_info.
:-)
Yeah, a smell of bad design, but that'll happen as you build lots of code, *then* have requirements change
I agree. The biggest problem C++ has is that there are lots of jackasses who feel that they need their language to tell them how to program, and they see C++ as a land of anarchy & danger instead of power & flexibility.
oh, so I can just say:
FILE * bar = openfile ("foo");
instead of
FILE * bar;
if (! (bar = openfile ("foo")) {
perror ("foo");
return;
}
As it's likely that there is more than one place where I have to handle the same kind of error... abstraction! woah!
As one can throw more than just an int, you can pass out any relevant info you want.
You can embed try{} blocks, as well as rethrow the exception.
Also, my C++ debugger has a little option called "break on exception," which solves the issue.
if it matters which part of the code had the error, then use separate try blocks for each part. In real life, most exception handling code DOESN'T care which function called it, or can tell from the exception type. As we've got more expressiveness than the value for ERRNO, we can do that here.
essentially a quote of linus's comments from the 1992 test. boo hoo, he tested a pre-standard language and a pre-standard compiler (which was honestly crap on C++ until very very recently).
You do realize that RTTI is a pointer comparison? And that the costs of exceptions are easily paid for in the reduced number of error checking code that tries to handle manually (and at every function) what exceptions do automatically. Not to mention that it gives the compiler more knowledge of what's going on, and thus more opportunity to optimize.
those vtable structs and pointers can now be validated by the compiler.
C++ also lets you insert code that's needed yet easy to forget, like deleting resources (ala smart pointers) both at the end of its use or when an exception is called.
And anyone who's actually read more than a quick "C++: classes and templates" book will know where and how the compiler inserts code for you. It's all very well defined, and also done only upon times which become obvious to an experienced programmer.
C++ wasn't standardized until 1998. Should I talk trash about C99 by referring to the original K&R version?
That's why you don't force the error checking to be scattered and disorganized all over the place; you structure and design it with the rest of the system.
Of course not. That's why we use assembler... oh wait...
Besides, the abstractions are already there, only they're not supported by the language. Look at device drivers: they're polymorphic classes, only that there's no checking that the compiler can do.
Embedded dev is now often C++ based. It's all about making sure you have devs who have a clue.
Anyone writing a == b should notice that a & b aren't primitive types.
Nope. It's a condition that the throwing code couldn't handle. Someone else can handle it.
Classic example: a method calls another that calls another that calls openfile() for a temp file, which fails. the lower two methods don't care, and the toplevel one can give the user a proper error message and clean up.
People wonder why software is so hard to test, does so poorly on error handling, yet complain whenever we add mechanisms to languages to help.