The std libraries will get a lot easier to use. C++ will get the for(type element : container) construct, like Java, and there is now an "auto" type that is infered at compile time. Those are probably the differences that you'll see not being too much into C++.
What there is in C++ that should make you look at it are the libraries, RAII, and templates. Only the libraries will change (ok, templates will get a bit better), so if they used to be the problem for you, take another look at them in the future.
Well, for example... Let's construct some class (call it Foo), and define the [ ][ ][ ] operation for it. That operation isn't a C++ operator, but a composition of them, but for that class it makes sense to use it. How would you do that?
If Foo::[ ] and Foo::[ ][ ] are both types that don't need any extra memory from what there is in Foo, your task is easy, but if it is not, you'll need to use one of the several work arounds available at the language, and will have to write quite a lot of hard to read code. With a garbage collector, your task is easy again.
"I thought standard library string implementations were supposed to be efficient, and include some sort of copy-on-write semantics..."
"The C++11 Standard Library uses move semantics extensively. Many algorithms and containers are now move-optimized."
"...right... Still, unless I actually know what this means, it's useless."
That means that what you tought about the first example is now true. The default libraries will use copy-on-write semantics, and your unoptimized code will run faster after a recompile.
Making a general porpouse library with copy-on-write semantics on C++ used to be quite hard (maybe impossible, I'm not sure). Now it will be viable.
"I actually really want to see it go before SCOTUS and have lawyers try to explain pointers and addresses when they don't even understand it themselves. Then define execution."
They were just recently discussing turing-completeness there (because of software patents), right untill they dismissed the entire concept as not a real thing...
You keep failing to get the GP's point, he is not advocating anything. Judiciary decisions aren't always logical, or clear, even when the law is logical and clear. Sometimes the decisions favor a contrived interpretation that lets the people with more money act freely, while the ones with less money are restricted. Other times the oposite happens, but then, it is just a matter of the part with more money not having money enough...
You seem to have already answered your own question. You pointed that there are FOSS equivalents for almost everything Microsoft makes. Thus somebody did already sink enough resources to develop such products despite it being legal for anybody to copy them.
"Where does the money come to pay the interest? It doesn't, because it doesn't exist. "
That part is wrong. The money to pay the interest could quite well be "summoned" by you lending some money to the banker and getting paid by some real good you sell him (or the equivalent of you giving some money to the banker and he giving you that money back). The fact that the banker expects some interest means only that he wants some real thing back for lending you the money.
That works quite well if the lending is contrained so that interest is a very small share of the GDP.
"This is untrue, if you actually examine the world people, on average are VERY CLEVER. If "people" were stupid our species would have been wiped out long ago."
If by "very clever" you mean spending everything they gain at the short term, and them some more, taking credit for that some more and saving nothing for whem they need, then ok, most people are clever. Two or three times (or five, or ten if your government helps you surviving) in a lifetime that cleverness backfires.
Or, if by clever you mean obeying television like if it was your master...
The software patents idea was defeated at the EU Parlament, to be voted again in a later data (that I don't remember) because bad terror movies always end with an "I'll be back" clause.
The fact that the EU Parlament was able to disagree with all the houses of elected bodies generated some concerns for a while, but then people forgot, and the EU come into an economical crisis, now all houses of elected bodies are quotidianely circunvented by several EU bodies on several countries.
"Yes, I'd love to see a group of companies get together and say "hey, we all need a decent software package, why don't we work together for a common goal and make it happen!"
That's the Apache foundation. But it doesn't happen often. Also, most companies don't compete between themselves, the only ones cometing are those that sell similar products.
"In the eyes of many suits, it's better to go with something that you know comes with no risk (license clearly states we own it, can do anything we want with it)..."
And where really have you ever said a proprietary software that license said that? Nearly all of them say that "you may buy, but we'll sue you later for using, because you missed some fine print", most of them don't let you use it as you wish (imposing extremely complex arguments, that will keep your personal occupied just trying to fullfil), and none of them say the selling company will assume any kind of risk created by the software. Where consumer laws are strong, the most a software company will give you is the smalest permited guarantee time, a refund only up to the amount you paid (during the guarantee time) and no situation at all when you can claim the refound.
The only license that states "you own it, do anything you wish" is BSD, altough the FSF guidelines are quite close to that.
Well, that's stupid. Those arguments are made, but are stupid.
"FOSS is somewhat lacking in the business software category (probably because a lot of business-y apps are no fun to develop)."
They are lacking because companies don't organize. One company doesn't speak to another (even on an unrelated area) to start a common project (it wouldn't raise any legal concern if the project isn't for profit) and share the costs.
"Additionally there are a lot of niche markets, where there are maybe 200 users of a piece of software (each who pay a pretty hefty premium for said software) where FOSS alternatives don't exist due to lack of demand."
Heh, see the above paragraph. You assume a strong demand, and them argue that there is lack of demand...
"Plus a lot of companies see using FOSS as a huge risk."
Oh yeah. There are not only stupid CEOs, there are also stupid lawyers. While they say that FOSS is a huge risk they overlook all the EULAs where the company is agreeing to be open for an external audit at any time, that all the company's data can be accessed by a third party, that the rights of use given to the company can change at any time, and it may have to aquire new licenses just to keep using the software they already brought at the discretion of a third party.
Not quite so. The point is that the Government is putting its big hand ou there again, interfering on a completely normal and not-more-dangerous-than-background activity again. The risk is that a big part of biological research at the US may die because of that.
And of course, all the fears go away when the article points that it is just an update of the list, and the interference was there all the time. The research was killed long ago.
No, we know of no way to block neutrinos comming from any direction. They probably counted the neutrinos they would naturaly gather, then turned their source on and counted again what neutrinos they detected.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I didn't know that dinossaurs traded on gold.
That nobel prize wasn't for doing absolutely nothing. It was granted to Obama for him not being Bush.
If he did in fact do absolutely nothing, I'd support the Nobel comitee. That would be quite an acomplishment.
Thanks for the explanation. What a hell of imcompatible versions... I guess that is how it feels to program in very new languages.
Yep, that happens to be what makes it usefull for some kinds of software. If you want a managed language, use one.
The std libraries will get a lot easier to use. C++ will get the for(type element : container) construct, like Java, and there is now an "auto" type that is infered at compile time. Those are probably the differences that you'll see not being too much into C++.
What there is in C++ that should make you look at it are the libraries, RAII, and templates. Only the libraries will change (ok, templates will get a bit better), so if they used to be the problem for you, take another look at them in the future.
Well, for example... Let's construct some class (call it Foo), and define the [ ][ ][ ] operation for it. That operation isn't a C++ operator, but a composition of them, but for that class it makes sense to use it. How would you do that?
If Foo::[ ] and Foo::[ ][ ] are both types that don't need any extra memory from what there is in Foo, your task is easy, but if it is not, you'll need to use one of the several work arounds available at the language, and will have to write quite a lot of hard to read code. With a garbage collector, your task is easy again.
That means that what you tought about the first example is now true. The default libraries will use copy-on-write semantics, and your unoptimized code will run faster after a recompile.
Making a general porpouse library with copy-on-write semantics on C++ used to be quite hard (maybe impossible, I'm not sure). Now it will be viable.
Isn't D copiled by GCC? Why would it not have a 64-bit compiler (you mean a compiler for ia64?)?
If you care to look you'll see that "string" isn't a keyword in C++.
Please, "const" is available for a long time now.
They were just recently discussing turing-completeness there (because of software patents), right untill they dismissed the entire concept as not a real thing...
You keep failing to get the GP's point, he is not advocating anything. Judiciary decisions aren't always logical, or clear, even when the law is logical and clear. Sometimes the decisions favor a contrived interpretation that lets the people with more money act freely, while the ones with less money are restricted. Other times the oposite happens, but then, it is just a matter of the part with more money not having money enough...
Well, if you do business with jerks, your business parties will be jerks.
It is not like Microsoft is a unknown company with a short history.
You seem to have already answered your own question. You pointed that there are FOSS equivalents for almost everything Microsoft makes. Thus somebody did already sink enough resources to develop such products despite it being legal for anybody to copy them.
Yes, that one piece of evil seems to not fit any category. And to add insult to the injury, it is AGAINST the executives, not by them.
Sorry, mixed Commission with Parlament up there.
That part is wrong. The money to pay the interest could quite well be "summoned" by you lending some money to the banker and getting paid by some real good you sell him (or the equivalent of you giving some money to the banker and he giving you that money back). The fact that the banker expects some interest means only that he wants some real thing back for lending you the money.
That works quite well if the lending is contrained so that interest is a very small share of the GDP.
If by "very clever" you mean spending everything they gain at the short term, and them some more, taking credit for that some more and saving nothing for whem they need, then ok, most people are clever. Two or three times (or five, or ten if your government helps you surviving) in a lifetime that cleverness backfires.
Or, if by clever you mean obeying television like if it was your master...
The software patents idea was defeated at the EU Parlament, to be voted again in a later data (that I don't remember) because bad terror movies always end with an "I'll be back" clause.
The fact that the EU Parlament was able to disagree with all the houses of elected bodies generated some concerns for a while, but then people forgot, and the EU come into an economical crisis, now all houses of elected bodies are quotidianely circunvented by several EU bodies on several countries.
No, the news about the Plank Telescope have that record already.
That's the Apache foundation. But it doesn't happen often. Also, most companies don't compete between themselves, the only ones cometing are those that sell similar products.
And where really have you ever said a proprietary software that license said that? Nearly all of them say that "you may buy, but we'll sue you later for using, because you missed some fine print", most of them don't let you use it as you wish (imposing extremely complex arguments, that will keep your personal occupied just trying to fullfil), and none of them say the selling company will assume any kind of risk created by the software. Where consumer laws are strong, the most a software company will give you is the smalest permited guarantee time, a refund only up to the amount you paid (during the guarantee time) and no situation at all when you can claim the refound.
The only license that states "you own it, do anything you wish" is BSD, altough the FSF guidelines are quite close to that.
Well, that's stupid. Those arguments are made, but are stupid.
They are lacking because companies don't organize. One company doesn't speak to another (even on an unrelated area) to start a common project (it wouldn't raise any legal concern if the project isn't for profit) and share the costs.
Heh, see the above paragraph. You assume a strong demand, and them argue that there is lack of demand...
Oh yeah. There are not only stupid CEOs, there are also stupid lawyers. While they say that FOSS is a huge risk they overlook all the EULAs where the company is agreeing to be open for an external audit at any time, that all the company's data can be accessed by a third party, that the rights of use given to the company can change at any time, and it may have to aquire new licenses just to keep using the software they already brought at the discretion of a third party.
Not so easy. Most infections don't spread so easily that they can't be contained. That is why we don't get pandemics often.
Not quite so. The point is that the Government is putting its big hand ou there again, interfering on a completely normal and not-more-dangerous-than-background activity again. The risk is that a big part of biological research at the US may die because of that.
And of course, all the fears go away when the article points that it is just an update of the list, and the interference was there all the time. The research was killed long ago.
No, we know of no way to block neutrinos comming from any direction. They probably counted the neutrinos they would naturaly gather, then turned their source on and counted again what neutrinos they detected.