The problem (as if there's only one!) is that the c++ committee members only have one thing in common: They hate C!
So you get a mix of people trying to bolt their favorite features from cobol, haskell, java, etc onto C. You know, to improve it. Maybe they should just stick to their failed language and leave the rest of us alone?
The second problem (as if there were only two!) is that they don't update the language to reflect what people what people are doing with it, they update the language to reflect what they think people should do with it. That means adding features that no compiler can implement (like exported templates) or feature nobody can or should use (like std::vector<bool> or cout/cin). I think they've started getting a little bit better in this regard, adopting better parts of boost rather than just making shit up. And clang++ implements draft proposals and provides feedback. Of course they're still full of dumb ivory tower ideas like adopting cairo.
std::vector is specialized to compress/store the values as bits rather than bools (basically a variable length std::bitset). operator[] returns a proxy object rather than a boolean&. It's a clever trick but it should be a separate class, not a specialization, since it violates their own rules for containers and can break your code (how do you take the address of a bit? Oh, you can't). One of Scott Meyers's (Effective C++, Effective STL, etc) rules is: Dont use it.
Sit on the toilet. You need to get a comfortable seat but you can work, shit, eat (I have a mini fridge within reaching distance), watch tv (I also have a tv mounted on the wall), pull your pud, whatever. And no pants required!
That works if myVec is a std::array or a int[100]. And many compilers will generate vector code for it (much faster!) whereas it's less likely with the manual loop.
Workforce diversity is a big issue these days. What steps has the c++ working group taken to increase the numbers of female and minority contributors? C++ (perhaps unfairly, due to the popularity) is often criticized in feminist circles for being a patriarchal programming language. Will you be taking steps to address those concerns?
Maybe the premise of this question is wrong... but I seem to recall reading somewhere that you hate C but built C++ on top of it because it was popular. Is that true and if so, do you ever feel bad about the bait and switch?
Slashdot Mirror
Barack Obama healed the earth with his inaugural address in 2008!
I guess you haven't tried my genital sharing business, hookr.
so, is it good or is it whack?
Call up the pizza man, the plumber, and the pool boy. While they're fucking her, you can read /. and jack-off to internet porn.
Were those PhDs smarter, better, and more productive than you?
SF still sucks, depending on which side of the glory hole you sit.
I hear airbnb is good.
You think that's bad? Try couch surfing at the geek compound circa 1999. Hope you like the smell of jaeger and astroglide.
I think he's teaching high school phys-ed.
Linux "won" mobile in the same way Michael Moore "won" the war on anorexia.
GNU/FSF projects won't accept contributions (beyond a couple lines) unless you've signed a CLA
So you get a mix of people trying to bolt their favorite features from cobol, haskell, java, etc onto C. You know, to improve it. Maybe they should just stick to their failed language and leave the rest of us alone?
The second problem (as if there were only two!) is that they don't update the language to reflect what people what people are doing with it, they update the language to reflect what they think people should do with it. That means adding features that no compiler can implement (like exported templates) or feature nobody can or should use (like std::vector<bool> or cout/cin). I think they've started getting a little bit better in this regard, adopting better parts of boost rather than just making shit up. And clang++ implements draft proposals and provides feedback. Of course they're still full of dumb ivory tower ideas like adopting cairo.
VC++ is a C++ compiler. They generally only add C features when they're incorporated into C++ (which will be never for some of them).
// comments are in the c99 standard.
Yeah, except the one guy who was paid to read the summary didn't.
std::vector is specialized to compress/store the values as bits rather than bools (basically a variable length std::bitset). operator[] returns a proxy object rather than a boolean&. It's a clever trick but it should be a separate class, not a specialization, since it violates their own rules for containers and can break your code (how do you take the address of a bit? Oh, you can't). One of Scott Meyers's (Effective C++, Effective STL, etc) rules is: Dont use it.
They don't call it a throne for nothing!
std::iota(std::begin(myVec), std::end(myVec), 0);
That works if myVec is a std::array or a int[100]. And many compilers will generate vector code for it (much faster!) whereas it's less likely with the manual loop.
c++11 added attributes which is kind of what you want, I think. Except there are only 3 standard ones and compiler-specific ones are namespaced.
Would it suck less if they used c++?
Workforce diversity is a big issue these days. What steps has the c++ working group taken to increase the numbers of female and minority contributors? C++ (perhaps unfairly, due to the popularity) is often criticized in feminist circles for being a patriarchal programming language. Will you be taking steps to address those concerns?
Has everyone responsible for the std::vector<bool> tragedy been kicked in the nuts until they are no longer at risk of reproducing?
Maybe the premise of this question is wrong... but I seem to recall reading somewhere that you hate C but built C++ on top of it because it was popular. Is that true and if so, do you ever feel bad about the bait and switch?
And don't try to hook up with them. They're out of your league. If she says "yes", she probably has a penis or in a con artist (or both).
Source: my buddy Rob found out the hard way. Of course, I always figured he liked to walk on the wild side.
Trying to develop a model that unites both head shape and psychological attributes is also incredibly difficult.