You post-incremented i instead of pre-incrementing it. (Because i isn't declared, I don't know if it's a basic type or an iterator. If it's an iterator, pre-incrementing is more efficient.)
You right-shifted instead of left-shifting.
You used endl on cerr, which is redundant and inefficient. (Standard error has auto-flushing on newline, and endl is almost never what you want.)
Just to be clear, I wasn't claiming that everything that comes out of visual effects houses trying to do animation is dross. What I'm claiming is that pretty much none of it comes from dedicated animation studios, unless you count Eisner-era Disney.
While I agree with you about Pixar, I disagree with you about some of the other studios.
Say what you will about PDI, but they've been in the business just as long as Pixar has, and they have the oldest renderer still in production use (p2r).
Interestingly, the old PDI studio in Redwood City has never had a bomb. The only dross coming out of DreamWorks has been the stuff produced in Glendale.
For the record, Blue Sky hasn't had a box office bomb, either.
The real dross (if you don't count Disney-before-the-Pixar-merger, which was really caused by Frank Wells' death and the reign of Eisner) is the stuff coming out of the visual effects houses who think they understand animation, like Sony Pictures Imageworks.
So yes, the best stuff is coming out of Pixar, but the other true animation studios aren't "pretenders" by any stretch.
The converse is also true. Movies which are deliberately made to "show off" 3D gimmicks (Monster House springs to mind) tend to lose most of their visual interest when displayed in traditional 2D theatres or on home TVs (even hi-def ones).
When Alec Guinness died, we said that he's become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
When Douglas Adams died, we said that he's no doubt spending a year dead for tax reasons.
When Arthur C. Clarke died, we said that he's probably been reincarnated as a large orbiting fetus.
When Gary Gygax died, we said that he's lost his last saving throw.
No, it's never too early, especially if the deceased would have appreciated the joke. When Terry Gilliam dies, you bet we're going to say: "Well you're dead now, so shut up." When Neal Stephenson dies, you bet we're going to comment about how the ending was a bit abrupt.
C++'s support for all of those features is poor and cumbersome.
...and yet highly pragmatic. Incidentally, I used to throw around words like "bloated" and "cumbersome" until I wrote something serious in C++, too. Now I understand.
Pretty much all of C++'s acknowledged problems can be traced back to its one greatest weakness (which is also its greatest strength): The fact that it's based on C.
But Java was written to replace C++ at the application level, and as such it does a tremendous job.
Wrong, and wrong.
Java was designed to support the execution of code from an untrusted source, such as from over a network. That was the main design criterion, and it permeates the language.
It was not written to replace C++ in the places where C++ works, and it's actually a very poor substitute. But then, C++ is also a poor substitute for Java.
The difference between C++ and most OOP languages is that C++ is basically a procedural programming language which has support for classes and objects integrated into it.
Wrong.
C++, like every sufficiently useful programming language, is a multi-paradigm language. It is dominantly procedural, this is true, but it also has language support for OOAD (which is not the same thing as OOP, as you correctly pointed out), generic programming, generative programming and facilities for adding embedding different kinds of of DSELs in convenient library form.
Anyone who says "C++ is object-oriented" are, much like those who refer to the non-existent language "C/C++", probably using C++ incorrectly.
No, the reason for the name change was that they no longer just sell computers.
But the real point is that every anal-retentive correction on an Internet forum itself contains a mistake that needs to be corrected.
He's a cowardly, self-serving, party-line Republican, and anyone who falls for his "straight talking maverick" act is a fool.
I wouldn't go that far. It's a very clever cowardly, self-serving, party-line Republican act. Even non-fools could fall for it if they're not paying attention.
Perhaps more to the point, an AM radio costs essentially nothing. You can make a crystal set out of scrounged parts.
Moving over to digital radio requires that everyone buys a more expensive and higher-power-consuming device, which in some circumstances is less useful. Digital equipment, to a first approximation, either works perfectly or not at all. Analog equipment can be stretched beyond its limits further under demanding circumstances, such as a civil emergency scenario (e.g. fire, flood) where degraded performance is better than a complete drop-out.
If you think that C and C++ are one language separated only by a slash, then you probably are better off coming from Java.
C++ has much more in common with Haskell than Java does, because of the un-C-like strict typing, and the template/concept type-level language, which is very close to Haskell's typeclass system. If you know C++ well, then you're probably ready for Haskell.
I think that TFA had a point, but expressed it poorly. His point was that you should learn the functional core before using monads, and learning an ML-family language first will essentially force you to do this.
IMO, this actually isn't too bad as advice goes:
If you've only ever used procedural (or even logic) languages before, you'll be tempted to put everything in a monad, which is bad for your health. Like any programming language, to use a feature well, you need to know when to apply it and when not to apply it. A better analogy is that in Perl, you should learn regular expressions before you try to make a Perl object.
The bits of the type system that support monads are advanced, and beyond the experience of programmers who have only ever used Algol-like type systems. And monads are just the first step: After that, there's STM, Arrows and lots of esoteric abstract mathematics made useful. You will never grok the seriously cool stuff if you don't "get" Hindley-Milner.
Nvidia, either by being wise or shortsighted, is discounting ray-tracing.
What you may not realise is that NVIDIA sells a renderer/raytracer which uses the GPU for accelleration, targeted at the animation and VFX market.
They are not discounting ray-tracing. They are embracing it. And they know, from lots of their own R&D, that it's not going to be competitive in the real-time market at any point in the forseeable future.
Most of our picture of hell is from Dante, not the Bible, as you probably know. (Indeed, the Bible doesn't actually mention "hell" as most televangelists interpret that word, but I digress.)
Assuming Dante's picture is right, then the place you really want to end up is the topmost layer of hell, Limbo.
This is the place where the "righteous unbaptized", such as Aristotle, Plato and Euclid go. As Scott Aaronson pointed out:
There, these pre-Christian luminaries could carry on an eternal intellectual conversation -- cut off from God's love to be sure, but also safe from the flames and pitchforks. How could angels and harps possibly compete with infinite tenure at Righteous Unbaptized University? If God wanted to lure me away from that, He'd probably have to throw in the Islamic martyr package.
Inverse Moore's Law states that the more time that developers spend on making games look 'pretty', the less time they spend on playability.
The computer graphics inverse of Moore's Law is known as Blinn's Law, and it essentially says that audience expectation rises at the same rate as Moore's Law.
Originally posed for the animation/vfx industries, the actual statement of Blinn's Law is that the amount of time it takes to compute one frame of film is constant over time. The corollary is that it doesn't matter if you can render Toy Story in real time using your fancy hardware, because today, people expect movies that look many times better than it.
According to Wikipedia, there is 76e18 kg of carbon in the atmosphere, hydrosphere and crust.
Aluminium, is roughly 8% of the crust. Just taking the lithosphere, that's 8% of 1.4e23 kg, or 1.12e22 kg.
So there's 150 or so times more aluminium than carbon by weight.
However, this is highly misleading, because:
- Al needs to be refined, whereas the C doesn't so much.
- A significant portion of the Al is in rock. Not ore, solid rock. Some of it is in oxide crystals, which you know better as gemstones. If you had a large pile of rubies or emeralds, would you try to extract the Aluminium from sapphire or ruby from it on a commercial scale? No, didn't think so.
- Al is twice as heavy per Mol than C.
- We use carbon for a lot more (e.g. fuel).
- You need less C to make a woven nanotube sheet than the equivalent Al.
Slashdot Mirror
Signing statement!
So many errors, so little code...
Just to be clear, I wasn't claiming that everything that comes out of visual effects houses trying to do animation is dross. What I'm claiming is that pretty much none of it comes from dedicated animation studios, unless you count Eisner-era Disney.
While I agree with you about Pixar, I disagree with you about some of the other studios.
Say what you will about PDI, but they've been in the business just as long as Pixar has, and they have the oldest renderer still in production use (p2r).
Interestingly, the old PDI studio in Redwood City has never had a bomb. The only dross coming out of DreamWorks has been the stuff produced in Glendale.
For the record, Blue Sky hasn't had a box office bomb, either.
The real dross (if you don't count Disney-before-the-Pixar-merger, which was really caused by Frank Wells' death and the reign of Eisner) is the stuff coming out of the visual effects houses who think they understand animation, like Sony Pictures Imageworks.
So yes, the best stuff is coming out of Pixar, but the other true animation studios aren't "pretenders" by any stretch.
The converse is also true. Movies which are deliberately made to "show off" 3D gimmicks (Monster House springs to mind) tend to lose most of their visual interest when displayed in traditional 2D theatres or on home TVs (even hi-def ones).
Have a look at his work from the second Wayne's World movie some time.
When Alec Guinness died, we said that he's become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
When Douglas Adams died, we said that he's no doubt spending a year dead for tax reasons.
When Arthur C. Clarke died, we said that he's probably been reincarnated as a large orbiting fetus.
When Gary Gygax died, we said that he's lost his last saving throw.
No, it's never too early, especially if the deceased would have appreciated the joke. When Terry Gilliam dies, you bet we're going to say: "Well you're dead now, so shut up." When Neal Stephenson dies, you bet we're going to comment about how the ending was a bit abrupt.
If I had a +1, I would give it to you for the Goodies reference alone.
...and yet highly pragmatic. Incidentally, I used to throw around words like "bloated" and "cumbersome" until I wrote something serious in C++, too. Now I understand.
Pretty much all of C++'s acknowledged problems can be traced back to its one greatest weakness (which is also its greatest strength): The fact that it's based on C.
Wrong, and wrong.
Java was designed to support the execution of code from an untrusted source, such as from over a network. That was the main design criterion, and it permeates the language.
It was not written to replace C++ in the places where C++ works, and it's actually a very poor substitute. But then, C++ is also a poor substitute for Java.
Wrong.
C++, like every sufficiently useful programming language, is a multi-paradigm language. It is dominantly procedural, this is true, but it also has language support for OOAD (which is not the same thing as OOP, as you correctly pointed out), generic programming, generative programming and facilities for adding embedding different kinds of of DSELs in convenient library form.
Anyone who says "C++ is object-oriented" are, much like those who refer to the non-existent language "C/C++", probably using C++ incorrectly.
No, the reason for the name change was that they no longer just sell computers. But the real point is that every anal-retentive correction on an Internet forum itself contains a mistake that needs to be corrected.
There's no company in existence called Apple Computer that I'm aware of. I think there might be oon called Apple, Inc.
I wouldn't go that far. It's a very clever cowardly, self-serving, party-line Republican act. Even non-fools could fall for it if they're not paying attention.
Perhaps more to the point, an AM radio costs essentially nothing. You can make a crystal set out of scrounged parts.
Moving over to digital radio requires that everyone buys a more expensive and higher-power-consuming device, which in some circumstances is less useful. Digital equipment, to a first approximation, either works perfectly or not at all. Analog equipment can be stretched beyond its limits further under demanding circumstances, such as a civil emergency scenario (e.g. fire, flood) where degraded performance is better than a complete drop-out.
If you think that C and C++ are one language separated only by a slash, then you probably are better off coming from Java.
C++ has much more in common with Haskell than Java does, because of the un-C-like strict typing, and the template/concept type-level language, which is very close to Haskell's typeclass system. If you know C++ well, then you're probably ready for Haskell.
Only in the same sense that alchemy is not a model for understanding the properties of matter.
Astrology is not a pseudo-science, it's a proto-science. Or, at least, it was once.
What you may not realise is that NVIDIA sells a renderer/raytracer which uses the GPU for accelleration, targeted at the animation and VFX market.
They are not discounting ray-tracing. They are embracing it. And they know, from lots of their own R&D, that it's not going to be competitive in the real-time market at any point in the forseeable future.
Darwin was an Anglican, not a Catholic. If you want to see Darwin's memorial, he's buried right there in Westminster Abbey, next to Isaac Newton.
Most of our picture of hell is from Dante, not the Bible, as you probably know. (Indeed, the Bible doesn't actually mention "hell" as most televangelists interpret that word, but I digress.)
Assuming Dante's picture is right, then the place you really want to end up is the topmost layer of hell, Limbo.
This is the place where the "righteous unbaptized", such as Aristotle, Plato and Euclid go. As Scott Aaronson pointed out:
The computer graphics inverse of Moore's Law is known as Blinn's Law, and it essentially says that audience expectation rises at the same rate as Moore's Law.
Originally posed for the animation/vfx industries, the actual statement of Blinn's Law is that the amount of time it takes to compute one frame of film is constant over time. The corollary is that it doesn't matter if you can render Toy Story in real time using your fancy hardware, because today, people expect movies that look many times better than it.
According to Wikipedia, there is 76e18 kg of carbon in the atmosphere, hydrosphere and crust. Aluminium, is roughly 8% of the crust. Just taking the lithosphere, that's 8% of 1.4e23 kg, or 1.12e22 kg. So there's 150 or so times more aluminium than carbon by weight. However, this is highly misleading, because: - Al needs to be refined, whereas the C doesn't so much. - A significant portion of the Al is in rock. Not ore, solid rock. Some of it is in oxide crystals, which you know better as gemstones. If you had a large pile of rubies or emeralds, would you try to extract the Aluminium from sapphire or ruby from it on a commercial scale? No, didn't think so. - Al is twice as heavy per Mol than C. - We use carbon for a lot more (e.g. fuel). - You need less C to make a woven nanotube sheet than the equivalent Al.
I didn't know that Marshall McLuhan had the nick "poopdeville".
I'm not so sure about that. Any government-enforced trade monopoly seems inherently evil to me.
But I do take your point.