My dad, who hates computers with a passion, had a very old XT that my sister didn't want anymore. After calling to see if I wanted it (I collect old computers), he took it outside and blasted away at it with his.357. I think he was smiling for a week after that!
I don't think you understand what "visual programming" is. None of the example you cite are real visual programming. Visual Basic, et. al., are not true visual programming. They are IDEs to help in building software. Visual programming requires no (or almost no) coding. It is all graphical. One example (I forget the system) involved using blackboxes. The boxes has particular functions (i.e., a signal processor). The boxes had connections for there inputs and outputs, and properties to modify their behavior. You just inserted the boxes you wanted, and connected them controlling the flow of your data. This system reminded me of designing digital logic circuits graphically. It's hard to explain, but it was actually more powerful than my description.
There are also systems to generate code from UML.
Re:If GCC can compile C++, then...
on
GCC 4.0 Preview
·
· Score: 1
No, the later name was replaced by the former when more langauges were added to GCC.
Re:If GCC can compile C++, then...
on
GCC 4.0 Preview
·
· Score: 1
I can't believe that everyone that replied to this is wrong! gcc is a frontend for all the languages in the collection. It use to stand for Gnu C Compiler when it was just C. Now it stands for Gnu Compiler Collection. gcc is not a compiler. It will execute the correct compiler based on file extension. g++ is the actual g++ compiler. It will not only compile the source as C++, but will automatically link with the C++ library (if necessary). If you compile from gcc instead of g++, you most explicitly pull in the library yourself.
Anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing. There have been millions of people over the years who have played D&D or other RPGs. You cite two examples. This is not even a statistical blip. I have known a lot of people how have played these games in my 3+ decades, and all but a couple are well adjusted (whatever that means) people with good jobs and families.
Ah, I see your confusion now. Yes, there were boxed sets like that (there were 5--Basic, intermediate, expert, master, and immortal I like was the progression). They were all D&D. But I can see your confusion think the progression led to advanced. It doesn't.
If you tried with with me, you would have found your self playing alone. Jump off a cliff because you didn't get the stats you wanted? Fine, your character is dead and you are done.
AD&D wasn't just another book. It was an entire line of rulebooks. AD&D was derived from D&D, but had more complicated rules and options. The main different I remember is that in D&D character races were also classes (you played an Elf class). With AD&D, the were separate (You could play an Elf whose is of the fighter class). When WoTC bought TSR and created the 3rd edition, they dropped the advanced from the name.
I have pretty much every rulebook since the original "whitebox" and can readily see firsthand D&D's changes throughout the years.
I would not call auto_ptr smart by any stretch of the would. It has a lot of problem. Besides, it does would with !=, so does not fit your argument. BOOST is not part of of the standard, so also do not fit your argument. By the by, the BOOST libraries that are going into the next release of the standard have already been chosen (though I'm not privy to that info.)
How is that imformative?? It's dead wrong!!! Both ANSI C and C++ require that the compiler treat 0 as a null pointer value, regardless of the internal representation used for NULL. They also require that !p and p == NULL BOTH evaluate to true if p is NULL.
I'm shocked how many people are writing the same above crap in this thread.
You really should read the standard. To BOTH standard C and C++, a value of 0 indicates to the compiler that it is a null pointer, REGARDLESS of whether a null pointer's internal representation is really 0. Comparing ANY pointer to ANY type against 0 is always valid in both languages.
You really should read the standard sometime. Compilers don't convert NULL to anything. They never see it. Both ANSI C and C++ require NULL to be a macro and require it to be 0. Internally, a null pointer can be anything. But a value of 0, when used with pointers, always indicates to the programmer AND the compiler that it is a null pointer. NULL and 0 are equivilent.
I don't care if he is trying to protect his business. That still doesn't give him the right to try to copyright and trademark someone elses work. And regardless of what he is saying now, if he is allowed to do so, what's to stop him from trying and stamp out MAME in the future?
Slashdot Mirror
"If Microsoft made toilet paper it would be called Butt Wiper." Brian Briggs
Shouldn't they call it "Anal Explorer"?
Mmmmm, Karma Whoring Goodness..... Now, that's good eatin'!
My dad, who hates computers with a passion, had a very old XT that my sister didn't want anymore. After calling to see if I wanted it (I collect old computers), he took it outside and blasted away at it with his .357. I think he was smiling for a week after that!
I wasn't defending it, just trying to explain it to the OP.
I don't think you understand what "visual programming" is. None of the example you cite are real visual programming. Visual Basic, et. al., are not true visual programming. They are IDEs to help in building software. Visual programming requires no (or almost no) coding. It is all graphical. One example (I forget the system) involved using blackboxes. The boxes has particular functions (i.e., a signal processor). The boxes had connections for there inputs and outputs, and properties to modify their behavior. You just inserted the boxes you wanted, and connected them controlling the flow of your data. This system reminded me of designing digital logic circuits graphically. It's hard to explain, but it was actually more powerful than my description. There are also systems to generate code from UML.
No, the later name was replaced by the former when more langauges were added to GCC.
I can't believe that everyone that replied to this is wrong! gcc is a frontend for all the languages in the collection. It use to stand for Gnu C Compiler when it was just C. Now it stands for Gnu Compiler Collection. gcc is not a compiler. It will execute the correct compiler based on file extension. g++ is the actual g++ compiler. It will not only compile the source as C++, but will automatically link with the C++ library (if necessary). If you compile from gcc instead of g++, you most explicitly pull in the library yourself.
Some of the Boost libraries will be part of the next version of the C++ standard, though I don't know the specific ones.
Well, no, they are called RPGs in the USA: rocket propelled grenades.
I prefer TaxAct. It's about 1/3 the price and does just as good of a job.
But how can you make that assertion when you have met only two? Using that logic, you can make any claim.
Anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing. There have been millions of people over the years who have played D&D or other RPGs. You cite two examples. This is not even a statistical blip. I have known a lot of people how have played these games in my 3+ decades, and all but a couple are well adjusted (whatever that means) people with good jobs and families.
Saying that one language is "faster" than another shows your utter lack of logical thought.
Ah, I see your confusion now. Yes, there were boxed sets like that (there were 5--Basic, intermediate, expert, master, and immortal I like was the progression). They were all D&D. But I can see your confusion think the progression led to advanced. It doesn't.
If you tried with with me, you would have found your self playing alone. Jump off a cliff because you didn't get the stats you wanted? Fine, your character is dead and you are done.
AD&D wasn't just another book. It was an entire line of rulebooks. AD&D was derived from D&D, but had more complicated rules and options. The main different I remember is that in D&D character races were also classes (you played an Elf class). With AD&D, the were separate (You could play an Elf whose is of the fighter class). When WoTC bought TSR and created the 3rd edition, they dropped the advanced from the name. I have pretty much every rulebook since the original "whitebox" and can readily see firsthand D&D's changes throughout the years.
Sorry, it's early, first cup of coffee, and didn't proof read. I hope you get the gist.
I would not call auto_ptr smart by any stretch of the would. It has a lot of problem. Besides, it does would with !=, so does not fit your argument. BOOST is not part of of the standard, so also do not fit your argument. By the by, the BOOST libraries that are going into the next release of the standard have already been chosen (though I'm not privy to that info.)
Except that there are not so called "smart pointers" defined by Standard C++.
How is that imformative?? It's dead wrong!!! Both ANSI C and C++ require that the compiler treat 0 as a null pointer value, regardless of the internal representation used for NULL. They also require that !p and p == NULL BOTH evaluate to true if p is NULL. I'm shocked how many people are writing the same above crap in this thread.
ANSI C++ does require the NULL macro to be defined, and required it to be 0.
You really should read the standard. To BOTH standard C and C++, a value of 0 indicates to the compiler that it is a null pointer, REGARDLESS of whether a null pointer's internal representation is really 0. Comparing ANY pointer to ANY type against 0 is always valid in both languages.
You really should read the standard sometime. Compilers don't convert NULL to anything. They never see it. Both ANSI C and C++ require NULL to be a macro and require it to be 0. Internally, a null pointer can be anything. But a value of 0, when used with pointers, always indicates to the programmer AND the compiler that it is a null pointer. NULL and 0 are equivilent.
I don't care if he is trying to protect his business. That still doesn't give him the right to try to copyright and trademark someone elses work. And regardless of what he is saying now, if he is allowed to do so, what's to stop him from trying and stamp out MAME in the future?
Seven years??? They just release a new album within the last few months.