You obviously have no concept of what salaried employment under a contract is.
How ironic. Did I mention that I'm a professional software developer? My whole working life is spent doing exactly what I have "no concept of". Yet strangely, what I do at home on my own time and with my own resources belongs entirely to me; indeed, there is a clause in my contract that makes this explicit.
Your "bend over and take it" attitude would suit a megacorp lawyer nicely, but I'm afraid my soul is not for sale at any price. I believe in a fair day's work for a fair day's pay: my employer pays me to develop the software they ask me to, and I do so to the best of my ability. They have no rights to any more than that, either morally or contractually, and if they want any more, they'll have to compensate me fairly for it.
So Apple goes to the court and says "Our business is to develop software [to be used on hardware we produce]." This is pretty clear cut. I don't know anyone who would say otherwise.
Ironically enough, I thought about countering this argument in advance, and then deleted the paragraph before I posted.:o)
The problem with that argument is that it's far too wide-ranging to be of any practical use. Saying "We have produced some multimedia app in the past, ergo you can never develop any multimedia app for any purpose without us owning it" is like the non-compete clauses that say "You can never work for any competitor after working for us" where "competitor" is interpreted to mean anyone else in the entire software development industry. Both are (a) unworkable in practice, and (b) grossly unfair on employees.
Some states in the US now have explicit legislation to guard employees against such broad and unreasonable claims by their employers, and indeed that appears to be the basis for the challenge in this case. Such test cases as there have been are far from "clear cut" in their upholding of terms as wide-reaching as these, and I certainly wouldn't want to bet on the outcome of this one if the information we've seen here is accurate.
Apple's view is that they already PAID him for this program.
So let's ask some simple questions.
Would they have paid him the same if he hadn't have written it?
Would they have paid someone else to write it instead?
If Apple can't demonstrate either of these things, it's hard to argue that they already paid him for the work, in which case the guy appears to have a legitimate grievance.
Legally speaking, the phrase "the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer" seems to place the burden of proof firmly on Apple: they have to show that they were doing, or definitely going to do, something along the same lines.
At this point, it's up to the legal system to interpret the relevant law given the specifics of the case. Of course, whether one man can hope to fight a legion of Apple lawyers within the current legal climate of the US is a different question, but the theory is sound.
And implying that the bodyguards were "planning to abuse the privileges" is more than a bit over the top, even by Slashdot levels of paranoia.
That depends on your perspective. We (the people of the UK, not the authorities) have seen several cases in recent years where authorities have been heavy-handed, from May Day when thousands were held against their will for several hours in central London by the police, to the visit by the Chinese premier where protestors were basically kept away, to the recent arms fair where anti-terrorism legislation was used because they couldn't find a legitimate way to remove objectors.
There's a lot of public concern about the breadth of anti-terrorism legislation and the blanket rules that have been applied in the name of fighting terrorism recently. The police can't afford another state visit like the Chinese one, or even the hint that they've abused the powers once again granted to them under that anti-terrorism legislation for Bush's visit.
There's also a lot of public concern because of the secrecy surrounding this visit. There are a lot of protestors who want to go through their own capital city to make their point, but who are having trouble doing so because of "higher hands" pulling the strings. There are millions of people in London wondering whether their routes to work will be messed up this week because of one man. Much of this is being attributed, rightly or wrongly (but they won't tell us) to demands by the USSS. If the authorities gave full diplomatic immunity to the US agents (and note that those agents already have a lot of extra privileges, starting with the right to carry their firearms in our country in the first place) then stories about allowing the USSS to steamroller our own authorities would be very, very bad PR for a government. The agents shouldn't need full diplomatic immunity, so why rock the boat?
Except that without their diplomatic credentials the Secret Service would be just another bunch of tourists, not law enforcement officers.
They're obviously not just another bunch of tourists, because they've been given permission to carry firearms that would be illegal for most people in the UK. They have a lot of diplomatic privilege so they can do their job, they're just not being granted carte blanche to ignore our laws and do as they see fit whatever the cost. Full diplomatic immunity is a sign of respect, but something that no respectful visitor would actually use under normal circumstances.
And yes, since you imply the question, using reasonable force to prevent the commission of a crime is explicitly legal in the UK. That's one of two basic legal routes that provide for self defence and, as in this case, the defence of others.
It would be nice if you liberals could actually go one article that isn't specifically Bush related without bringing up Bush but it's pretty obvious that you can't.
I didn't bring Bush up, the other guy did. And if you think he's being slammed too often, ask yourself why.
Instead of bitching and moaning about Bush why don't you do something about Blair?
Because we don't currently have the power to do so. Give us a couple of years, by which time he must call a general election, and we'll get back to you.
If what you said were true as universally as you or I might like, then we wouldn't have had to wait years for the European Convention on Human Rights to overturn a variety of long-outdated or downright abusive laws.
The sad fact is that, with current trends being what they are, the lack of a clear, written, well-publicised Constitution that sets out certain basic rights and freedoms is starting to harm the average British citizen. We are forced to resort to Europe because our own laws are no longer sufficient to protect us in some fundamental ways.
Even now, some forms of discrimination are still seriously damaging the health of our society. Ageism in the workplace is an obvious example, and yet our laws do not protect the very people who have helped to build that society for the past several decades. We have very limited guarantees of privacy, and many of the effective guarantees we used to enjoy have been eroded by a small number of particularly draconian Acts in recent years, RIP being perhaps the most high profile example.
If overly right-wing governments are to continue the current trend of ever more restrictive laws and ever fewer checks and balances on those who make them, then our only defence will be a solid Constitution, which once set out cannot be changed save by referendum, and a "supreme court" with the absolute authority to enforce it over and above any Acts approved by the sitting government.
What does the form of the US consitution have to do with it?
The US Constitution is a well known document often cited in cases reaching the higher courts. Finding a law passed by current government unconstitutional is grounds for invalidating that law.
In the UK, with no similarly explicit Constitution and no corresponding court, the same approach to nullifying laws is not readily available.
Can you cite anything setting the precedents you mention? Last time I observed this sort of conversation, several knowledgable lawyers turned up and demonstrated pretty convincingly that "it's not enforceable" was an old wives' tale not supported by relevant case law. I don't recall whether that was based in the UK, though.
Using their firearms to protect the President against a genuine threat would probably be deemed reasonable force used to prevent the commission of a crime, and as such the agents concerned would have a fairly solid defence under UK law.
Using their firearms to shoot someone with a nervous tick in the crowd who "looked suspicious" probably would not be seen in the same light, however, nor driving a dozen vehicle motorcade forcibly through any intervening central London traffic because some agent slipped on a panic button by mistake. These things would presumably be covered by diplomatic immunity, however...
You're mistaking legal systems. In the UK, while the absolute discretion of a jury to find as it sees fit was long ago legally challenged and proven, such a case does not set a precedent that becomes overriding law the way it would in some other jurisdictions (notably the US, IIRC).
Everything you say is reasonable. The problem is that historically, capabilities like this have been used unreasonably. The safest way to ensure that such abuses to not happen in future is to restrict access to information only to those who really need it. No-one outside the NHS needs to know my medical history. No-one outside the tax office needs to know my financial affairs. No-one at all needs to know every movement I make, and be able to match them all up if someone with the right contacts decides they don't like me in twenty years' time.
OK, here's a summary of the major "anti" arguments.
There are some theoretical benefits, but little evidence supports the claim that they will work in practice.
A lot of the claimed benefits obviously won't materialise, because five-year-olds can identify why they won't work. (Yes, some of the practical problems are so obvious that five-year-olds have been quoted in the media.)
The remainder are dubious simply because the government has never yet managed to organise such a wide-scale system without numerous crippling flaws. (I speak as someone who was working full-time in two jobs on opposite sides of the country, living in two places simultaneously, for several months according to the tax office, and all because someone mistyped and put in my NI number -- note the "universal ID" there -- when updating someone else's record.)
If the cards aren't compulsory (as in, you must have one, and you must carry it at all times) then most of the anti-crime benefits are pointless anyway.
There is serious potential for abuse.
Historically, almost every identification scheme introduced in the UK has been abused by the authorities when it suits them. Notice the way that driving licences and passports -- neither of which is legally required and both of which cost money -- are the only acceptable forms of ID for many things these days. Note also my comments on NI numbers above. Don't even ask about TV licences, and agencies whose computer systems don't acknowledge the possibility that you might not have one, say because you didn't have a TV.
If card-carrying is made full-time compulsory, then anyone who, say, demonstrates vocally during a visit by a foreign head of state, can be stopped, have their identity demanded, and then be blacklisted and subject to further abuse in future.
Did we mention that it's going to cost billions to implement?
Basically, it comes down to three things: it won't do its job, it will be abused, and it will cost a fortune that should be spent on more important things.
The parent wasn't insightful, it was wishful thinking. Copyright law in the UK has never allowed people the automatic right to make back-ups. Everybody does, and no-one's stupid enough to sue them for it, but technically it's only legal if the licence agreement allows for it.
How exactly were you proposing that this law would be challenged? We have no written Constitution, in the sense that the US does, so the usual mechanism for overturning silly laws across the pond is out. There's nothing inherently wrong with this law in a legal sense: what it says sucks, but it was passed by the usual means. Sure, we can hope that in time copyright law in the UK will be changed to reflect common sense (in particular, explicitly recognising various fair uses in the sense that US copyright law does) but for now, there's simply no basis in law to challenge this.
OTOH, the tinfoil hat brigade who are chanting "super-DMCA" should go and read what it actually says (and doesn't say) before getting all spooky on us.
The British Prime Minister is so far up Bush's arse that it should be no surprise that he wants to copy US legislation.
Tony and his cronies may be, but I think the state visit this week will make the overwhelming public view here abundantly clear. On the BBC News web site over the weekend, there was an amusing article about some of the things the US have asked for during their state visit, but been denied by British authorities.
Top of the list for comedy value was David Blunkett (the UK Home Secretary, who's not exactly known for his liberal views and is currently trying to ram compulsory identity cards down our throats) refusing to grant diplomatic immunity to the 700 US Secret Service agents coming over to guard Bush. Y'know, the ones who are already being backed up by 5,000 UK Metropolitan Police officers in London, and who are already being allowed to carry more firearms than the Met would usually have on the streets as a courtesy. Why exactly would they need diplomatic immunity anyway, unless they were planning to abuse the privileges being granted to them?
The parent is, sadly, correct. In the UK, copyright law has never allowed for the same "fair use" as the corresponding law in the US. Some exemptions do apply, but copying for personal use is not among them by default, even if it's just transferring data to a different media format, burning a CD with just your favourite tracks (which you legally have on other CDs) on it, or making back-ups.
This is, of course, a rather absurd situation, since everybody does it and even the pro-copyright people (of whom I am normally one) don't argue that the behaviour is unreasonable. That's probably why, AFAIK, no-one has ever been prosecuted in the UK for recording a programme onto video cassette and keeping it, or making back-ups of software they just bought for their computer. The law should certainly be changed to reflect the practical reality, but in practice, it's not as damaging as it sounds for now, because the UK legal culture isn't anything like as nasty as the US one.
The first thing that struck me when reading the question is that "great" is a subjective term. I'm sure many people would acknowledge the very well known things, such as "Goto considered harmful", as great.
I imagine others would consider a much broader spectrum. For example, one of the most insightful papers I've ever read is John Hughes's Why functional programming matters. It took a subject I'd seen briefly, in introductory lectures during a CS course, and put a perspective on it that motivated what I'd already seen -- something no other book or paper I had found did.
Perhaps to an experienced user of functional programming languages, this paper would offer little or nothing new. Nevertheless, to a relative newbie interested in the subject, it provided a very useful second step on the path. In that sense, from my perspective, that was also a great paper.
I believe it's because "\x0012345678" represents a single character (with hexadecimal code 12345678) followed by '\0'. The number of digits in a character literal like that could be arbitrarily large.
In your other examples, "\x00f" is two characters, one with hexadecimal code f and the other '\0', while "\00g" is three characters, '\0', 'g' and '\0': the 'g', not being a hexadecimal digit, terminates the preceding character literal and stands in its own right.
While agree with much of what you say, I think source code level optimisation still has its place. We (an office who write high performance maths libraries) recently reviewed a document written by AMD, on how to optimise performance on their recent chips. They gave a number of specific examples at a "C" level -- the sort of thing you'd never do without profiling, but might find useful if you've got a bottleneck. Sure enough, age-old solutions like manual loop unrolling were in there, and sure enough, even state of the art compilers on PCs still miss a lot of even the more basic "hand coded" optimisations.
Certainly trying to do it yourself can be a lose, particularly with a solid compiler on a recent processor with clever pipelining tricks. However, there is still a reason that libraries like Blitz are well regarded, and that reason is that, for now, their output code is still much faster than most people's "normal" code.
You really should read Modern C++ Design to develop an appreciation for these techniques. They aren't obvious at first.
In fairness, while MC++D is indeed an interesting book for the serious C++ hacker, one should bear in mind (as the original post to this subthread pointed out) that most of the clever function stuff in it is second nature in a functional language, wherein it is obvious and a typical programmer will achieve much the same goals with far less obfuscation and much more concise code.
I've noticed that a lot of the "leading edge" C++ tools, from the STL to Loki and Boost, are pretty much trying to implement programming tools from other languages that have demonstrated value -- higher order functions, automatic resource management, high performance mathematics, complex data structures, regular expressions -- within C++. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but the underlying techniques aren't particularly clever if you're familiar with languages that specialise in them.
Every day, as I work on a complex mathematical library written in C++, I internally groan at writing five times as many lines of code as I'd need in any major functional language because C++ has such weak support for a couple of key areas that we use all the time. The practicalities of our situation may make it the most appropriate tool we've found for the job, but looking at templates, macro hackery or cute inheritance graphs doesn't stop me wishing I could use higher order functions when working with complex mathematics...
Portability isn't implied by open source, and indeed many of the major points in favour of open source don't depend on portability at all.
Moreover, it is a matter of reality that a lot of tools, open source or otherwise, can only practically be written using proprietary or otherwise platform-specific tools.
Sometimes this is just down to time constraints: using a specific library may cut months off the development time, at the expense of (immediate) portability, as in this case. Of course, if portability matters, you can always use those months you saved later on instead to write the same code you would have had to write in the first place to work with some other tool lacking the custom feature you used originally. You have lost nothing by taking this approach, and made a release of your software that works with that particular non-standard tool much earlier than would otherwise have been possible.
Other times, there are performance constraints on your application, which can be met by using non-standard extensions in some tool, but not using only standard code. This problem (portability vs. performance) has existed since forever, and will forever continue to do so. It's a trade-off, and sometimes performance is the more important factor.
Finally, of course, sometimes it's just easier to use a custom extension and no-one sees any risk in doing so. Try building the Linux kernel with a standards-compliant C++ compiler that doesn't offer all the non-standard extensions that gcc includes and see how far you get. But since gcc isn't likely to go away any time soon, this hasn't been found to be a particularly devastating weakness, even though the output code from gcc isn't as high quality as some more targetted compilers.
Basically, all I'm saying is that while portability may be desirable, and it's a silly idea to compromise it "just because", sometimes other things are more important. What matters is meeting the requirements for your specific project, and portability is just a means to an end you may or may not need to reach.
Err, because other database tools don't? Which part of "non-standard extensions" don't you understand?
I understand perfectly well, thanks. I just acknowledge the fact that the requirements for some projects do not include portability, and indeed may include constraints that are best satisfied by using specific tools. You fail to acknowledge this possibility.
Of course it's normally best to isolate any non-standard interfaces you use (or indeed any interfaces you use to any API you didn't write yourself) via some sort of abstraction layer. That's just page one of the Book of Smart Software Design. It doesn't mean you can't take advantage of non-standard features, though, particularly where there is a significant cost/time penalty for sticking with pure standard.
And design decisions can be just as stupid as any other.
Indeed they can, and making them on the basis of hard and fast rules rather than considering the pros and cons in each case is just about the easiest way to make a stupid design decision.
Slashdot Mirror
How ironic. Did I mention that I'm a professional software developer? My whole working life is spent doing exactly what I have "no concept of". Yet strangely, what I do at home on my own time and with my own resources belongs entirely to me; indeed, there is a clause in my contract that makes this explicit.
Your "bend over and take it" attitude would suit a megacorp lawyer nicely, but I'm afraid my soul is not for sale at any price. I believe in a fair day's work for a fair day's pay: my employer pays me to develop the software they ask me to, and I do so to the best of my ability. They have no rights to any more than that, either morally or contractually, and if they want any more, they'll have to compensate me fairly for it.
Ironically enough, I thought about countering this argument in advance, and then deleted the paragraph before I posted. :o)
The problem with that argument is that it's far too wide-ranging to be of any practical use. Saying "We have produced some multimedia app in the past, ergo you can never develop any multimedia app for any purpose without us owning it" is like the non-compete clauses that say "You can never work for any competitor after working for us" where "competitor" is interpreted to mean anyone else in the entire software development industry. Both are (a) unworkable in practice, and (b) grossly unfair on employees.
Some states in the US now have explicit legislation to guard employees against such broad and unreasonable claims by their employers, and indeed that appears to be the basis for the challenge in this case. Such test cases as there have been are far from "clear cut" in their upholding of terms as wide-reaching as these, and I certainly wouldn't want to bet on the outcome of this one if the information we've seen here is accurate.
So let's ask some simple questions.
If Apple can't demonstrate either of these things, it's hard to argue that they already paid him for the work, in which case the guy appears to have a legitimate grievance.
Legally speaking, the phrase "the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer" seems to place the burden of proof firmly on Apple: they have to show that they were doing, or definitely going to do, something along the same lines.
At this point, it's up to the legal system to interpret the relevant law given the specifics of the case. Of course, whether one man can hope to fight a legion of Apple lawyers within the current legal climate of the US is a different question, but the theory is sound.
Ah, but the best bit is that carrying the weapons required for that practice would now be illegal...
That depends on your perspective. We (the people of the UK, not the authorities) have seen several cases in recent years where authorities have been heavy-handed, from May Day when thousands were held against their will for several hours in central London by the police, to the visit by the Chinese premier where protestors were basically kept away, to the recent arms fair where anti-terrorism legislation was used because they couldn't find a legitimate way to remove objectors.
There's a lot of public concern about the breadth of anti-terrorism legislation and the blanket rules that have been applied in the name of fighting terrorism recently. The police can't afford another state visit like the Chinese one, or even the hint that they've abused the powers once again granted to them under that anti-terrorism legislation for Bush's visit.
There's also a lot of public concern because of the secrecy surrounding this visit. There are a lot of protestors who want to go through their own capital city to make their point, but who are having trouble doing so because of "higher hands" pulling the strings. There are millions of people in London wondering whether their routes to work will be messed up this week because of one man. Much of this is being attributed, rightly or wrongly (but they won't tell us) to demands by the USSS. If the authorities gave full diplomatic immunity to the US agents (and note that those agents already have a lot of extra privileges, starting with the right to carry their firearms in our country in the first place) then stories about allowing the USSS to steamroller our own authorities would be very, very bad PR for a government. The agents shouldn't need full diplomatic immunity, so why rock the boat?
They're obviously not just another bunch of tourists, because they've been given permission to carry firearms that would be illegal for most people in the UK. They have a lot of diplomatic privilege so they can do their job, they're just not being granted carte blanche to ignore our laws and do as they see fit whatever the cost. Full diplomatic immunity is a sign of respect, but something that no respectful visitor would actually use under normal circumstances.
And yes, since you imply the question, using reasonable force to prevent the commission of a crime is explicitly legal in the UK. That's one of two basic legal routes that provide for self defence and, as in this case, the defence of others.
I didn't bring Bush up, the other guy did. And if you think he's being slammed too often, ask yourself why.
Because we don't currently have the power to do so. Give us a couple of years, by which time he must call a general election, and we'll get back to you.
If what you said were true as universally as you or I might like, then we wouldn't have had to wait years for the European Convention on Human Rights to overturn a variety of long-outdated or downright abusive laws.
The sad fact is that, with current trends being what they are, the lack of a clear, written, well-publicised Constitution that sets out certain basic rights and freedoms is starting to harm the average British citizen. We are forced to resort to Europe because our own laws are no longer sufficient to protect us in some fundamental ways.
Even now, some forms of discrimination are still seriously damaging the health of our society. Ageism in the workplace is an obvious example, and yet our laws do not protect the very people who have helped to build that society for the past several decades. We have very limited guarantees of privacy, and many of the effective guarantees we used to enjoy have been eroded by a small number of particularly draconian Acts in recent years, RIP being perhaps the most high profile example.
If overly right-wing governments are to continue the current trend of ever more restrictive laws and ever fewer checks and balances on those who make them, then our only defence will be a solid Constitution, which once set out cannot be changed save by referendum, and a "supreme court" with the absolute authority to enforce it over and above any Acts approved by the sitting government.
The US Constitution is a well known document often cited in cases reaching the higher courts. Finding a law passed by current government unconstitutional is grounds for invalidating that law.
In the UK, with no similarly explicit Constitution and no corresponding court, the same approach to nullifying laws is not readily available.
Can you cite anything setting the precedents you mention? Last time I observed this sort of conversation, several knowledgable lawyers turned up and demonstrated pretty convincingly that "it's not enforceable" was an old wives' tale not supported by relevant case law. I don't recall whether that was based in the UK, though.
Using their firearms to protect the President against a genuine threat would probably be deemed reasonable force used to prevent the commission of a crime, and as such the agents concerned would have a fairly solid defence under UK law.
Using their firearms to shoot someone with a nervous tick in the crowd who "looked suspicious" probably would not be seen in the same light, however, nor driving a dozen vehicle motorcade forcibly through any intervening central London traffic because some agent slipped on a panic button by mistake. These things would presumably be covered by diplomatic immunity, however...
Ah, so that's why they wanted diplomatic immunity...
Oh, sorry, that was the other guys. :o)
You're mistaking legal systems. In the UK, while the absolute discretion of a jury to find as it sees fit was long ago legally challenged and proven, such a case does not set a precedent that becomes overriding law the way it would in some other jurisdictions (notably the US, IIRC).
Everything you say is reasonable. The problem is that historically, capabilities like this have been used unreasonably. The safest way to ensure that such abuses to not happen in future is to restrict access to information only to those who really need it. No-one outside the NHS needs to know my medical history. No-one outside the tax office needs to know my financial affairs. No-one at all needs to know every movement I make, and be able to match them all up if someone with the right contacts decides they don't like me in twenty years' time.
OK, here's a summary of the major "anti" arguments.
Basically, it comes down to three things: it won't do its job, it will be abused, and it will cost a fortune that should be spent on more important things.
The parent wasn't insightful, it was wishful thinking. Copyright law in the UK has never allowed people the automatic right to make back-ups. Everybody does, and no-one's stupid enough to sue them for it, but technically it's only legal if the licence agreement allows for it.
How exactly were you proposing that this law would be challenged? We have no written Constitution, in the sense that the US does, so the usual mechanism for overturning silly laws across the pond is out. There's nothing inherently wrong with this law in a legal sense: what it says sucks, but it was passed by the usual means. Sure, we can hope that in time copyright law in the UK will be changed to reflect common sense (in particular, explicitly recognising various fair uses in the sense that US copyright law does) but for now, there's simply no basis in law to challenge this.
OTOH, the tinfoil hat brigade who are chanting "super-DMCA" should go and read what it actually says (and doesn't say) before getting all spooky on us.
Tony and his cronies may be, but I think the state visit this week will make the overwhelming public view here abundantly clear. On the BBC News web site over the weekend, there was an amusing article about some of the things the US have asked for during their state visit, but been denied by British authorities.
Top of the list for comedy value was David Blunkett (the UK Home Secretary, who's not exactly known for his liberal views and is currently trying to ram compulsory identity cards down our throats) refusing to grant diplomatic immunity to the 700 US Secret Service agents coming over to guard Bush. Y'know, the ones who are already being backed up by 5,000 UK Metropolitan Police officers in London, and who are already being allowed to carry more firearms than the Met would usually have on the streets as a courtesy. Why exactly would they need diplomatic immunity anyway, unless they were planning to abuse the privileges being granted to them?
The parent is, sadly, correct. In the UK, copyright law has never allowed for the same "fair use" as the corresponding law in the US. Some exemptions do apply, but copying for personal use is not among them by default, even if it's just transferring data to a different media format, burning a CD with just your favourite tracks (which you legally have on other CDs) on it, or making back-ups.
This is, of course, a rather absurd situation, since everybody does it and even the pro-copyright people (of whom I am normally one) don't argue that the behaviour is unreasonable. That's probably why, AFAIK, no-one has ever been prosecuted in the UK for recording a programme onto video cassette and keeping it, or making back-ups of software they just bought for their computer. The law should certainly be changed to reflect the practical reality, but in practice, it's not as damaging as it sounds for now, because the UK legal culture isn't anything like as nasty as the US one.
The first thing that struck me when reading the question is that "great" is a subjective term. I'm sure many people would acknowledge the very well known things, such as "Goto considered harmful", as great.
I imagine others would consider a much broader spectrum. For example, one of the most insightful papers I've ever read is John Hughes's Why functional programming matters . It took a subject I'd seen briefly, in introductory lectures during a CS course, and put a perspective on it that motivated what I'd already seen -- something no other book or paper I had found did.
Perhaps to an experienced user of functional programming languages, this paper would offer little or nothing new. Nevertheless, to a relative newbie interested in the subject, it provided a very useful second step on the path. In that sense, from my perspective, that was also a great paper.
I believe it's because "\x0012345678" represents a single character (with hexadecimal code 12345678) followed by '\0'. The number of digits in a character literal like that could be arbitrarily large.
In your other examples, "\x00f" is two characters, one with hexadecimal code f and the other '\0', while "\00g" is three characters, '\0', 'g' and '\0': the 'g', not being a hexadecimal digit, terminates the preceding character literal and stands in its own right.
While agree with much of what you say, I think source code level optimisation still has its place. We (an office who write high performance maths libraries) recently reviewed a document written by AMD, on how to optimise performance on their recent chips. They gave a number of specific examples at a "C" level -- the sort of thing you'd never do without profiling, but might find useful if you've got a bottleneck. Sure enough, age-old solutions like manual loop unrolling were in there, and sure enough, even state of the art compilers on PCs still miss a lot of even the more basic "hand coded" optimisations.
Certainly trying to do it yourself can be a lose, particularly with a solid compiler on a recent processor with clever pipelining tricks. However, there is still a reason that libraries like Blitz are well regarded, and that reason is that, for now, their output code is still much faster than most people's "normal" code.
Yeah, and those bastards killed Kenny, too.
Oh...
In fairness, while MC++D is indeed an interesting book for the serious C++ hacker, one should bear in mind (as the original post to this subthread pointed out) that most of the clever function stuff in it is second nature in a functional language, wherein it is obvious and a typical programmer will achieve much the same goals with far less obfuscation and much more concise code.
I've noticed that a lot of the "leading edge" C++ tools, from the STL to Loki and Boost, are pretty much trying to implement programming tools from other languages that have demonstrated value -- higher order functions, automatic resource management, high performance mathematics, complex data structures, regular expressions -- within C++. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but the underlying techniques aren't particularly clever if you're familiar with languages that specialise in them.
Every day, as I work on a complex mathematical library written in C++, I internally groan at writing five times as many lines of code as I'd need in any major functional language because C++ has such weak support for a couple of key areas that we use all the time. The practicalities of our situation may make it the most appropriate tool we've found for the job, but looking at templates, macro hackery or cute inheritance graphs doesn't stop me wishing I could use higher order functions when working with complex mathematics...
Portability isn't implied by open source, and indeed many of the major points in favour of open source don't depend on portability at all.
Moreover, it is a matter of reality that a lot of tools, open source or otherwise, can only practically be written using proprietary or otherwise platform-specific tools.
Sometimes this is just down to time constraints: using a specific library may cut months off the development time, at the expense of (immediate) portability, as in this case. Of course, if portability matters, you can always use those months you saved later on instead to write the same code you would have had to write in the first place to work with some other tool lacking the custom feature you used originally. You have lost nothing by taking this approach, and made a release of your software that works with that particular non-standard tool much earlier than would otherwise have been possible.
Other times, there are performance constraints on your application, which can be met by using non-standard extensions in some tool, but not using only standard code. This problem (portability vs. performance) has existed since forever, and will forever continue to do so. It's a trade-off, and sometimes performance is the more important factor.
Finally, of course, sometimes it's just easier to use a custom extension and no-one sees any risk in doing so. Try building the Linux kernel with a standards-compliant C++ compiler that doesn't offer all the non-standard extensions that gcc includes and see how far you get. But since gcc isn't likely to go away any time soon, this hasn't been found to be a particularly devastating weakness, even though the output code from gcc isn't as high quality as some more targetted compilers.
Basically, all I'm saying is that while portability may be desirable, and it's a silly idea to compromise it "just because", sometimes other things are more important. What matters is meeting the requirements for your specific project, and portability is just a means to an end you may or may not need to reach.
I understand perfectly well, thanks. I just acknowledge the fact that the requirements for some projects do not include portability, and indeed may include constraints that are best satisfied by using specific tools. You fail to acknowledge this possibility.
Of course it's normally best to isolate any non-standard interfaces you use (or indeed any interfaces you use to any API you didn't write yourself) via some sort of abstraction layer. That's just page one of the Book of Smart Software Design. It doesn't mean you can't take advantage of non-standard features, though, particularly where there is a significant cost/time penalty for sticking with pure standard.
Indeed they can, and making them on the basis of hard and fast rules rather than considering the pros and cons in each case is just about the easiest way to make a stupid design decision.