I understand that you don't quite grasp the idiocy of your statement, but you can increase government revenue without actually raising taxes. You can lower the tax rate, increase the economy, and still increase government revenue because that taxes paid are more dollars despite being a smaller percentage. It worked for JFK when the Republicans were against it. It worked for Reagan when the Democrats were against it. No matter which party wants to lower taxes to stimulate the economy, it works, and the other party says it's fiscally irresponsible. Really, you don't have to raise taxes to support increased spending. On the other hand, I'm not happy with the Bush spending increases.
How, exactly, does one *create* a market? there's zero demand. Uhm... create demand? Seriously, you create a market for your product by convincing people that they need it. There was zero demand for the automobile when it was first invented, but people were eventually convinced that cars were better than horses for transportation. Software people just have to convince the public that Linux is better than Windows to create a market for it. What kind of idiot asks a question like that, anyway?
Actually the hydrogen bomb is a three-stage fission-fusion-fission device. First the core (usually plutonium) fissions, the energy output causes the hydrogen fusion reaction, and that intense energy causes a much higher yield fusion of the uranium shell which encases the fusion reactor. You were so close, yet oh so far away.
Just don't play it on a fast computer. It used to be fun on my old 486 when terraforming meant I had to leave the computer running all night while I slept, and it still might not be done in the morning. On my 1.7GHz p4, it's just... too fast. Oh well, the more you bitch about something, the more you miss it when it's gone.
I'd much prefer to let the CIA get back into wet work to take out a lot of these guys instead of using military force, but we're not allowed to do that anymore. Anyway, that's a rant for another time. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with our helping Kuwait and Israel when they ask for our help because I don't see it as an intrusion when you're invited, but we have enough crap going wrong in our country to deal with that I see no reason to impose ourselves on random foreign countries. As a side note, I also think we should've assassinated Saddam and both of his kids back when the Hussein family tried to knock off former President Bush, but I definitely believe that war on terrorism means war on countries that support it, and I more importantly believe that war on terrorism means all terrorism, and not just the group who pissed us off most recently.
The Crusades were horrible, and the bullshit applied then by the Catholic church was abominable. That said, I said fifteen centuries, not nine centuries. I'm referring to the rise of Islam from its inception to conquer the area. Why do you think India and Pakistan hate each other so much? Could it possibly be the Islamic invasion of India to convert the Hindu barbarians? You act like the evil Americans and Europeans are the only ones in the history of the world who have ever practiced imperialism, and I merely point out that Islam was founded on the practice and that, quite frankly, they've hated and killed non-Muslims for fifteen hundred years, and I don't really think it's going to change any time soon. Sure, it's already changing on a small scale. Lots of Muslims are rational people who just want to be treated as the good human beings that they are, but in the aggregate, their culture isn't that way.
they want us to stop fucking around with their countries and telling them how to live their lives. Doesn't seem like too much to ask, does it - or do you have a better suggestion? That sounds like a wonderful idea, but I also think it's idiotic to let a bully beat the shit out of you repeatedly with no provocation when you're quite capable of breaking every bone in his body. I don't want "us" to tell them how to live their lives or to "fuck around" with their countries, but that's just my principled belief of how "we" should behave. On the other hand, I also don't think it will stop terrorism, and I do think that sometimes we have to get involved to protect ourselves. I'm a bit of an isolationist though. I want other countries to leave us alone, and I want us to leave them alone. We can take care of ourselves. (Note: We are fully capable of it; we choose not to out of laziness.)
"Terrorists" only hate non-Islamic people because "we" (as in, our governments) have given them cause to. Have you ever looked at a world history book? I'm specifically referring to the history of North Africa, India, and the Middle East because Islamic terrorists have hated non-Islamic people for about fifteen centuries. Now, compare this with the fact that "we" (as in, our governments) haven't existed that long.
It's quite frightening to me how people continuously prove correct the little poster on the wall of my highschool history class, "Those who don't pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it."
I don't know THAT much about languages but I don't think C++, even written to ANSI specs, would be machine compatible across platforms. Wouldn't things like 'little endian vs big endian' cause problems? I am assuming those problems don't exist in C# since it uses a VM (that's my impression). In any case, most people don't write ANSI standardized code. It's source-portable, not binary portable. Java and C# aren't machine portable anyway. They're bytecode portable and interpreted by the VM into machine code at runtime. That's why I said it's portable as long as you have a compiler, but non-standard C++ isn't C++. Non-standard Java isn't Java, and non-standard C# isn't C#. The standard defines the language.
Only a minority of people are good (in the sense that they do the work, perform well at school, etc). Yet you cannot only have schools for these good people. You need schools for everyone. You can fail them until they learn the material, or you can make the school teach them how to do things in a way that they can learn.
But that is never the intention. I am sure that the computer scientists who create new languages never have the intention of building a language for bad programmers. I'm sure that they don't, but if a language hinders good programmers while enhancing the performance of bad programmers, I think it's a bad language. That's all.
So when I say that Pixar (or whoever) will switch, I am saying that all new code will be in, say, C# and the existing C/C++/whatever will be replaced at some point. My point was that your point that processing ability is rising is irrelevant because processing requirements are rising as well, so "slower" languages won't be able to cope with the needs of major image processing. The libraries developed by Pixar et al will be used to make C++ a higher level language (in much the same way that Java and C# make themselves higher level languages) by making new code use existing libraries. The new code will be higher level than the existing code but use the same language and take advantage of the speed optimizations already made in the libraries. The beauty of C++'s level is that you can get down to the low level if you need to, and you can write high level code the rest of the time. As long as you have libraries, that is.
That is the same reason you will switch from your beloved C++;) to a higher level language in the future. I welcome the opportunity to switch to a higher level language if it's easier and equally expressive. C++ is just as expressive (if not moreso) than C, and C is just as expressive (if not moreso) than assembler. Java is not as expressive as C++. C# may be, but I don't really think it is. I haven't researched it as much, but it seems to also force you to do things. I'm not saying that a higher level language won't emerge and take over. I'm just saying that the ones that are developing now may replace each other, but they won't replace C++. Java doesn't write better assembly than C++, or it would be smaller and faster. The same goes for C#. They make the language less expressive in order to make it harder to do dangerous things, but until the cost of upgrading is at most zero, I don't see it happening the way people switched from assembly to C.
But I think the main reason it is a higher level language is because java code can run on any machine. ANSI/ISO standard C++ code runs on any machine with a C++ compiler just like Java code runs on any machine with a JVM. Note that I'm assuming that you're using C++ for its C++ features and not for some of the ultra-low-level C features like embedded assembly language and what not.
It is my opinion that jobs are simply human economic slavery (stop rolling your eyes;) ). I am a conservative, but I also agree with you for the most part. Most people do a job that they hate because they have to pay the bills. I wish they could/would do a job that they like instead.
Therefore, I don't know how you can honestly call for the vast majority of programmers to be fired. If the vast majority of programmers should be fired because they are "bad", then the same should apply to police officers, doctors, scientists, sanitation workers, and so forth. Well, I think if they're not good at their job, they should be fired. If you can't handle the job and aren't qualified, then you have no business doing the job. You may think this makes no sense, but I don't think people with no skill should be doing skilled jobs. It's not in the employer's best interest to employ people who suck at their job. I don't think you should develop languages so that bad programmers can make bad software. You should develop languages so that good programmers can make great software. I'd even be ok with allowing mediocre programmers to make good software, but I feel that a lot of the new languages are dumbing things down so that bad programmers can make bad-but-not-terrible software. Yes, C++ allows a bad programmer to make catastrophic software, but they have no business making software at all.
You seem to create a totally efficient world where humans are operating at 100%. Unforutnately for you, it isn'g going to happen. You literally have to replace humans with robots for that to happen. I don't really want 100% efficiency. Sure, it'd be great because 100% efficiency would pretty much mean that humans can sit around and do as much or as little as they want, and everything would "magically" appear like in Star Trek. In our current system though, I just think you should get the best person for the job and develop tools to allow them to work better instead of developing tools to allow unqualified people to work somewhat less dangerously but in other ways more dangerously. (I assert that software should work perfectly, fail gracefully, or fail catastrophicly. Software written in "high level" hand-holding languages by bad programmers will often fail silently, continue running, and break important things due to logic errors. At least C++ will usually cause the problem to dump core due to a memory error before it smashes things up too bad.)
I expect bad programmers in India just like in USA. In any case, jobs are being outsourced for financial reasons--not quality. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was that in my experienced it's bad programmers who get outsourced because you can get better-or-equal performance for a lot less money. Good programmers don't tend to get outsourced because they're cost effective. That is to say, I don't think bad programmers in the US deserve the same salary as good ones.
For instance, why would anyone pick Java over C++? I have no idea. I personally write better code faster in C++ than with Java. And before you start complaining about how bug-ridden my code must be due to memory management: I use stack memory whenever possible, which Java won't let me use, and I generally use Boost.org's shared_ptr for heap memory. Furthermore, the ability to use z = x + y; no matter what the types involved are (assuming the operator is overloaded) makes it a lot faster for me to write something than if I have to use Java's bastardized mess of a library and have to look up the name of the function for adding an x to a y. Also furthermore, C++ templates is safer than Java's Object-based class hierarchy because Java allows you to have a heterogenous container and forces you to keep track of the correct class and cast things. So, aside from the fact that C++ allows access to the low level depths of C, how exactly is Java a higher level language? Do you call it that because it does garbage collection, or what?
Since the vast majority of programmers are bad*, higher level languages should be chosen, and will ultimately win out. I disagree. I would assert that since the vast majority of programmers are bad, they need to be fired. It's their fault that jobs are outsourced to India because they can't produce a product of adequate quality.
Things that took you 1 hour now will probably take 30 min in C#. Software development isn't language dependant, it's paradigm dependant. C# isn't that different from C++ except that it removes some flexibility. That is to say, it makes it impossible for a bad programmer to screw up an easy task while making it more difficult for a good programmer to accomplish a more difficult task.
So, you are wrong. Pixar Studios, weather forecasting labs, and others WILL switch to C#/Java/etc at some point. I think they'll keep using C++ with the libraries they've developed over the years because to keep pushing the envelope in their fields, they have to increase their processing requirements.
Why do you use C++? Why not, say, assembly? Why did programmers switch to C++ from cobol or fortran? I use C++ over C because I can write C-style code that works better in C++. I use C over COBOL or FORTRAN for the same reason that I use C++ over Java: I don't like the language telling me I have to write a program its way when its way isn't the right way for the task at hand. I use C and C++ over assembly because the compiler writes better assembly code than I do. For me to write a better/faster/smaller program would take a lot of time, and the compiler does it faster than I would. Well-written C is faster than assembly for non-trivial programs.
This is not to say that programmers don't need to know memory management - for the people writing the VM, it's very important - but not all of them do. If you can't perform/understand simple programming tasks, you haven't earned the priviledge of having the computer do it for you. Take most math classes for example. You learn to do long division before you're allowed to use a calculator for it, and you learn to evaluate derivatives and integrals algebraicly via limits before you learn the short cuts. One big problem with the software industry today is that people who can't do simple things like memory management call themselves programmers because they can stick together some VB or Java or C# code that compiles and doesn't crash but is still a piece of crap.
So you're saying that just because most of the people who claim to be C++ programmers are idiots, C++ sucks? That's interesting. Most of the people I deal with who claim to be Java programmers are idiots who write horrid Java code that will generally not work properly, but I don't use that to claim that Java sucks. Furthermore, is there any reason to use C anymore instead of C++? A C++ compiler makes C much safer, and you can do everything in C++ that you can do in C, so why use C?
(i.e. people who insist on overriding defaults and installing everything in their custom directories, etc.)
I'd just like to be able to install the OS on one partition and Applications/Data on another without 1. spending hours messing with the registry or 2. the entire thing blowing up in my face.
I'm just curious, but would you agree to the killing of a person in the midst of a stroke? Their brain functions cease (in some cases), but they haven't ceased permanently (well, not always). An embryo who has yet to have brain functions but will someday is therefore, by your definition, not "dead" because the cessation of brain function is again not permanent. Just food for thought, so to speak.
If we draw the line for life further down the cycle, then those cells aren't any different than the skin we shed everday. The primary difference being that the skin we shed every day is dead before we shed it.
100 human embryo cells together each have human DNA. 100 chicken embryo cells together each have chicken DNA. Therefore, a human embryo is human and a chicken embryo is poultry. What's so damn complicated about this?
"Theft" is not a legal term anyway. In most-if-not-all jurisdictions within the US, there is no such crime as theft. What is generally known as "theft" falls into the categories of larceny (taking something that doesn't belong to you) and robbery (same thing, but taking it directly from another person). The general term is often expanded to include the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material. I don't really agree with that usage, but this issue has been argued, re-argued, and virtually beaten into oblivion on/. and other fora. Do you really think that continuing to bitch about it is going to help anything?
If it was part of the price, why doesn't the restaurant just charge me and pay the guy more? Could it be because it's not really part of the price? And why is the "appropriate" tip 18% now but it was 15% a few years ago? Don't say inflation or cost of living either because the price of the food rose with that inflation. You don't deserve a tip just because you brought me a drink and sat a plate on the table.
As to why you should pay it: simply because you're eating at a restaurant, and like it or not, tips are the reality of food service in America (assuming you are in America). Without tips the waiter is most likely not making a particularly attractive wage, perhaps not even a livable one. First of all, tips are also known as gratuities. You get a tip in gratitude for good service. If you don't give good service, you don't get a good tip. Tolerable-but-poor = 5%, mediocre = 10%, what-I-expect=15%, better-than-expected=20%, and outstanding=25%. I've only not tipped two people, and I've only given one person a 25% tip. I've discussed my system with some friends who wait tables, and they agree that it's fair. Why? Because it's the server's JOB to give good service. They get paid for that. No, it's not a living wage, so if you want tips, you earn them. It's not really that hard to make sure my drink doesn't stay empty, to make sure that I don't have to ask for refills, to ensure satisfaction with the meal, to make sure I know why my food is taking a long time (I'm blaming you if you don't tell me otherwise), and to act like you don't hate your job. (Note: I don't care if you hate your job. I don't blame you if you hate your job. I understand having a bad day. Don't take it out on your custmoers!) Also, friendliness bumps people up into the 20% category, almost automatically, because most waiters I deal with anymore are apathetic and frown all the time. I'll overlook any minor annoyance if the person is just nice.
At the very least if you are going to short someone on a tip, you should speak to the management about why you found the service lacking. If the reason's not worth the effort to relate to their boss, is it worth making the waiter feel bad over a couple bucks? No. If I don't leave a tip, I generally leave a note on the table telling the server why. I don't want the person to get fired necessarily, but I do want him to reflect on the fact that he should do better.
And, by the way, it's not about the money. You can say people who don't tip are being greedy miserly bastards if you want, but I personally am sick of people acting like they're entitled. "Tips" are a way for me to say "thanks" when somebody makes my dinner more pleasant. If it was mandatory, they would raise the prices on the menu and pay their staff more. (which often hapens for "large" groups anyway)
However, it is also illegal to pass someone on the right unless they are in the process of making a left turn or are stopped on the road. Because someone is traveling at the speed limit does not make passing them legal, at least not in any state i've been in.
Passing on the right is against the law except in areas where it is specifically permitted. Passing on the right places your vehicle on the blind side of the car you are passing. The car you are passing could unexpectedly make a right turn or pull over to the right side of the road. Exceptions where passing on the right is allowed:
*
* on highways having at least two lanes traveling in each direction;
* on one-way streets where all lanes of traffic move in the same direction;
* when passing a vehicle that is in the left-turn lane; and/or
* when driving in a lane set aside for right turns.
On three-lane highways, you must not pass except in the center lane, and then only where the center lane is marked for passing in your direction. Exception: When the car in the center lane is making a left turn.
Actually he's existed since the creation of the universe. He's tied with Saruman, Sauron, and the Balrog as the oldest characters in the movie trilogy;)
Slashdot Mirror
I understand that you don't quite grasp the idiocy of your statement, but you can increase government revenue without actually raising taxes. You can lower the tax rate, increase the economy, and still increase government revenue because that taxes paid are more dollars despite being a smaller percentage. It worked for JFK when the Republicans were against it. It worked for Reagan when the Democrats were against it. No matter which party wants to lower taxes to stimulate the economy, it works, and the other party says it's fiscally irresponsible. Really, you don't have to raise taxes to support increased spending. On the other hand, I'm not happy with the Bush spending increases.
How, exactly, does one *create* a market? there's zero demand.
Uhm... create demand? Seriously, you create a market for your product by convincing people that they need it. There was zero demand for the automobile when it was first invented, but people were eventually convinced that cars were better than horses for transportation. Software people just have to convince the public that Linux is better than Windows to create a market for it. What kind of idiot asks a question like that, anyway?
Actually the hydrogen bomb is a three-stage fission-fusion-fission device. First the core (usually plutonium) fissions, the energy output causes the hydrogen fusion reaction, and that intense energy causes a much higher yield fusion of the uranium shell which encases the fusion reactor. You were so close, yet oh so far away.
Just don't play it on a fast computer. It used to be fun on my old 486 when terraforming meant I had to leave the computer running all night while I slept, and it still might not be done in the morning. On my 1.7GHz p4, it's just... too fast. Oh well, the more you bitch about something, the more you miss it when it's gone.
I'd much prefer to let the CIA get back into wet work to take out a lot of these guys instead of using military force, but we're not allowed to do that anymore. Anyway, that's a rant for another time. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with our helping Kuwait and Israel when they ask for our help because I don't see it as an intrusion when you're invited, but we have enough crap going wrong in our country to deal with that I see no reason to impose ourselves on random foreign countries. As a side note, I also think we should've assassinated Saddam and both of his kids back when the Hussein family tried to knock off former President Bush, but I definitely believe that war on terrorism means war on countries that support it, and I more importantly believe that war on terrorism means all terrorism, and not just the group who pissed us off most recently.
The Crusades were horrible, and the bullshit applied then by the Catholic church was abominable. That said, I said fifteen centuries, not nine centuries. I'm referring to the rise of Islam from its inception to conquer the area. Why do you think India and Pakistan hate each other so much? Could it possibly be the Islamic invasion of India to convert the Hindu barbarians? You act like the evil Americans and Europeans are the only ones in the history of the world who have ever practiced imperialism, and I merely point out that Islam was founded on the practice and that, quite frankly, they've hated and killed non-Muslims for fifteen hundred years, and I don't really think it's going to change any time soon. Sure, it's already changing on a small scale. Lots of Muslims are rational people who just want to be treated as the good human beings that they are, but in the aggregate, their culture isn't that way.
they want us to stop fucking around with their countries and telling them how to live their lives. Doesn't seem like too much to ask, does it - or do you have a better suggestion?
That sounds like a wonderful idea, but I also think it's idiotic to let a bully beat the shit out of you repeatedly with no provocation when you're quite capable of breaking every bone in his body. I don't want "us" to tell them how to live their lives or to "fuck around" with their countries, but that's just my principled belief of how "we" should behave. On the other hand, I also don't think it will stop terrorism, and I do think that sometimes we have to get involved to protect ourselves. I'm a bit of an isolationist though. I want other countries to leave us alone, and I want us to leave them alone. We can take care of ourselves. (Note: We are fully capable of it; we choose not to out of laziness.)
"Terrorists" only hate non-Islamic people because "we" (as in, our governments) have given them cause to.
Have you ever looked at a world history book? I'm specifically referring to the history of North Africa, India, and the Middle East because Islamic terrorists have hated non-Islamic people for about fifteen centuries. Now, compare this with the fact that "we" (as in, our governments) haven't existed that long.
It's quite frightening to me how people continuously prove correct the little poster on the wall of my highschool history class, "Those who don't pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it."
I don't know THAT much about languages but I don't think C++, even written to ANSI specs, would be machine compatible across platforms. Wouldn't things like 'little endian vs big endian' cause problems? I am assuming those problems don't exist in C# since it uses a VM (that's my impression). In any case, most people don't write ANSI standardized code.
It's source-portable, not binary portable. Java and C# aren't machine portable anyway. They're bytecode portable and interpreted by the VM into machine code at runtime. That's why I said it's portable as long as you have a compiler, but non-standard C++ isn't C++. Non-standard Java isn't Java, and non-standard C# isn't C#. The standard defines the language.
Only a minority of people are good (in the sense that they do the work, perform well at school, etc). Yet you cannot only have schools for these good people. You need schools for everyone.
You can fail them until they learn the material, or you can make the school teach them how to do things in a way that they can learn.
But that is never the intention. I am sure that the computer scientists who create new languages never have the intention of building a language for bad programmers.
I'm sure that they don't, but if a language hinders good programmers while enhancing the performance of bad programmers, I think it's a bad language. That's all.
So when I say that Pixar (or whoever) will switch, I am saying that all new code will be in, say, C# and the existing C/C++/whatever will be replaced at some point.
;) to a higher level language in the future.
My point was that your point that processing ability is rising is irrelevant because processing requirements are rising as well, so "slower" languages won't be able to cope with the needs of major image processing. The libraries developed by Pixar et al will be used to make C++ a higher level language (in much the same way that Java and C# make themselves higher level languages) by making new code use existing libraries. The new code will be higher level than the existing code but use the same language and take advantage of the speed optimizations already made in the libraries. The beauty of C++'s level is that you can get down to the low level if you need to, and you can write high level code the rest of the time. As long as you have libraries, that is.
That is the same reason you will switch from your beloved C++
I welcome the opportunity to switch to a higher level language if it's easier and equally expressive. C++ is just as expressive (if not moreso) than C, and C is just as expressive (if not moreso) than assembler. Java is not as expressive as C++. C# may be, but I don't really think it is. I haven't researched it as much, but it seems to also force you to do things. I'm not saying that a higher level language won't emerge and take over. I'm just saying that the ones that are developing now may replace each other, but they won't replace C++. Java doesn't write better assembly than C++, or it would be smaller and faster. The same goes for C#. They make the language less expressive in order to make it harder to do dangerous things, but until the cost of upgrading is at most zero, I don't see it happening the way people switched from assembly to C.
But I think the main reason it is a higher level language is because java code can run on any machine.
;) ).
ANSI/ISO standard C++ code runs on any machine with a C++ compiler just like Java code runs on any machine with a JVM. Note that I'm assuming that you're using C++ for its C++ features and not for some of the ultra-low-level C features like embedded assembly language and what not.
It is my opinion that jobs are simply human economic slavery (stop rolling your eyes
I am a conservative, but I also agree with you for the most part. Most people do a job that they hate because they have to pay the bills. I wish they could/would do a job that they like instead.
Therefore, I don't know how you can honestly call for the vast majority of programmers to be fired. If the vast majority of programmers should be fired because they are "bad", then the same should apply to police officers, doctors, scientists, sanitation workers, and so forth.
Well, I think if they're not good at their job, they should be fired. If you can't handle the job and aren't qualified, then you have no business doing the job. You may think this makes no sense, but I don't think people with no skill should be doing skilled jobs. It's not in the employer's best interest to employ people who suck at their job. I don't think you should develop languages so that bad programmers can make bad software. You should develop languages so that good programmers can make great software. I'd even be ok with allowing mediocre programmers to make good software, but I feel that a lot of the new languages are dumbing things down so that bad programmers can make bad-but-not-terrible software. Yes, C++ allows a bad programmer to make catastrophic software, but they have no business making software at all.
You seem to create a totally efficient world where humans are operating at 100%. Unforutnately for you, it isn'g going to happen. You literally have to replace humans with robots for that to happen.
I don't really want 100% efficiency. Sure, it'd be great because 100% efficiency would pretty much mean that humans can sit around and do as much or as little as they want, and everything would "magically" appear like in Star Trek. In our current system though, I just think you should get the best person for the job and develop tools to allow them to work better instead of developing tools to allow unqualified people to work somewhat less dangerously but in other ways more dangerously. (I assert that software should work perfectly, fail gracefully, or fail catastrophicly. Software written in "high level" hand-holding languages by bad programmers will often fail silently, continue running, and break important things due to logic errors. At least C++ will usually cause the problem to dump core due to a memory error before it smashes things up too bad.)
I expect bad programmers in India just like in USA. In any case, jobs are being outsourced for financial reasons--not quality.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was that in my experienced it's bad programmers who get outsourced because you can get better-or-equal performance for a lot less money. Good programmers don't tend to get outsourced because they're cost effective. That is to say, I don't think bad programmers in the US deserve the same salary as good ones.
For instance, why would anyone pick Java over C++?
I have no idea. I personally write better code faster in C++ than with Java. And before you start complaining about how bug-ridden my code must be due to memory management: I use stack memory whenever possible, which Java won't let me use, and I generally use Boost.org's shared_ptr for heap memory. Furthermore, the ability to use z = x + y; no matter what the types involved are (assuming the operator is overloaded) makes it a lot faster for me to write something than if I have to use Java's bastardized mess of a library and have to look up the name of the function for adding an x to a y. Also furthermore, C++ templates is safer than Java's Object-based class hierarchy because Java allows you to have a heterogenous container and forces you to keep track of the correct class and cast things. So, aside from the fact that C++ allows access to the low level depths of C, how exactly is Java a higher level language? Do you call it that because it does garbage collection, or what?
Since the vast majority of programmers are bad*, higher level languages should be chosen, and will ultimately win out.
I disagree. I would assert that since the vast majority of programmers are bad, they need to be fired. It's their fault that jobs are outsourced to India because they can't produce a product of adequate quality.
Things that took you 1 hour now will probably take 30 min in C#.
Software development isn't language dependant, it's paradigm dependant. C# isn't that different from C++ except that it removes some flexibility. That is to say, it makes it impossible for a bad programmer to screw up an easy task while making it more difficult for a good programmer to accomplish a more difficult task.
So, you are wrong. Pixar Studios, weather forecasting labs, and others WILL switch to C#/Java/etc at some point.
I think they'll keep using C++ with the libraries they've developed over the years because to keep pushing the envelope in their fields, they have to increase their processing requirements.
Why do you use C++? Why not, say, assembly? Why did programmers switch to C++ from cobol or fortran?
I use C++ over C because I can write C-style code that works better in C++. I use C over COBOL or FORTRAN for the same reason that I use C++ over Java: I don't like the language telling me I have to write a program its way when its way isn't the right way for the task at hand. I use C and C++ over assembly because the compiler writes better assembly code than I do. For me to write a better/faster/smaller program would take a lot of time, and the compiler does it faster than I would. Well-written C is faster than assembly for non-trivial programs.
This is not to say that programmers don't need to know memory management - for the people writing the VM, it's very important - but not all of them do.
If you can't perform/understand simple programming tasks, you haven't earned the priviledge of having the computer do it for you. Take most math classes for example. You learn to do long division before you're allowed to use a calculator for it, and you learn to evaluate derivatives and integrals algebraicly via limits before you learn the short cuts. One big problem with the software industry today is that people who can't do simple things like memory management call themselves programmers because they can stick together some VB or Java or C# code that compiles and doesn't crash but is still a piece of crap.
So you're saying that just because most of the people who claim to be C++ programmers are idiots, C++ sucks? That's interesting. Most of the people I deal with who claim to be Java programmers are idiots who write horrid Java code that will generally not work properly, but I don't use that to claim that Java sucks. Furthermore, is there any reason to use C anymore instead of C++? A C++ compiler makes C much safer, and you can do everything in C++ that you can do in C, so why use C?
(i.e. people who insist on overriding defaults and installing everything in their custom directories, etc.)
I'd just like to be able to install the OS on one partition and Applications/Data on another without 1. spending hours messing with the registry or 2. the entire thing blowing up in my face.
I'm just curious, but would you agree to the killing of a person in the midst of a stroke? Their brain functions cease (in some cases), but they haven't ceased permanently (well, not always). An embryo who has yet to have brain functions but will someday is therefore, by your definition, not "dead" because the cessation of brain function is again not permanent. Just food for thought, so to speak.
If we draw the line for life further down the cycle, then those cells aren't any different than the skin we shed everday.
The primary difference being that the skin we shed every day is dead before we shed it.
100 human embryo cells together each have human DNA. 100 chicken embryo cells together each have chicken DNA. Therefore, a human embryo is human and a chicken embryo is poultry. What's so damn complicated about this?
"Theft" is not a legal term anyway. In most-if-not-all jurisdictions within the US, there is no such crime as theft. What is generally known as "theft" falls into the categories of larceny (taking something that doesn't belong to you) and robbery (same thing, but taking it directly from another person). The general term is often expanded to include the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material. I don't really agree with that usage, but this issue has been argued, re-argued, and virtually beaten into oblivion on /. and other fora. Do you really think that continuing to bitch about it is going to help anything?
If it was part of the price, why doesn't the restaurant just charge me and pay the guy more? Could it be because it's not really part of the price? And why is the "appropriate" tip 18% now but it was 15% a few years ago? Don't say inflation or cost of living either because the price of the food rose with that inflation. You don't deserve a tip just because you brought me a drink and sat a plate on the table.
As to why you should pay it: simply because you're eating at a restaurant, and like it or not, tips are the reality of food service in America (assuming you are in America). Without tips the waiter is most likely not making a particularly attractive wage, perhaps not even a livable one.
First of all, tips are also known as gratuities. You get a tip in gratitude for good service. If you don't give good service, you don't get a good tip. Tolerable-but-poor = 5%, mediocre = 10%, what-I-expect=15%, better-than-expected=20%, and outstanding=25%. I've only not tipped two people, and I've only given one person a 25% tip. I've discussed my system with some friends who wait tables, and they agree that it's fair. Why? Because it's the server's JOB to give good service. They get paid for that. No, it's not a living wage, so if you want tips, you earn them. It's not really that hard to make sure my drink doesn't stay empty, to make sure that I don't have to ask for refills, to ensure satisfaction with the meal, to make sure I know why my food is taking a long time (I'm blaming you if you don't tell me otherwise), and to act like you don't hate your job. (Note: I don't care if you hate your job. I don't blame you if you hate your job. I understand having a bad day. Don't take it out on your custmoers!) Also, friendliness bumps people up into the 20% category, almost automatically, because most waiters I deal with anymore are apathetic and frown all the time. I'll overlook any minor annoyance if the person is just nice.
At the very least if you are going to short someone on a tip, you should speak to the management about why you found the service lacking. If the reason's not worth the effort to relate to their boss, is it worth making the waiter feel bad over a couple bucks?
No. If I don't leave a tip, I generally leave a note on the table telling the server why. I don't want the person to get fired necessarily, but I do want him to reflect on the fact that he should do better.
And, by the way, it's not about the money. You can say people who don't tip are being greedy miserly bastards if you want, but I personally am sick of people acting like they're entitled. "Tips" are a way for me to say "thanks" when somebody makes my dinner more pleasant. If it was mandatory, they would raise the prices on the menu and pay their staff more. (which often hapens for "large" groups anyway)
Never argued with that one. ;) Just pointing out that you can pass on any lane of an Interstate here.
However, it is also illegal to pass someone on the right unless they are in the process of making a left turn or are stopped on the road. Because someone is traveling at the speed limit does not make passing them legal, at least not in any state i've been in.
I guess you've never been in NC then.
Excerpt from NCDOT:
Passing on the right
Passing on the right is against the law except in areas where it is specifically permitted. Passing on the right places your vehicle on the blind side of the car you are passing. The car you are passing could unexpectedly make a right turn or pull over to the right side of the road. Exceptions where passing on the right is allowed:
*
* on highways having at least two lanes traveling in each direction;
* on one-way streets where all lanes of traffic move in the same direction;
* when passing a vehicle that is in the left-turn lane; and/or
* when driving in a lane set aside for right turns.
On three-lane highways, you must not pass except in the center lane, and then only where the center lane is marked for passing in your direction. Exception: When the car in the center lane is making a left turn.
When your vehicle is being passed
Actually he's existed since the creation of the universe. He's tied with Saruman, Sauron, and the Balrog as the oldest characters in the movie trilogy ;)