Are they? Both NVidia and ATI base their workstation boards on their gaming boards, and AFAIK it is generally understood they are damn near identical. Is there any difference worth mentioning between these cards and their gaming equivalents? If so, what and why?
I have no doubt about technical feasibility, but financial may be a different question. Still, there are some old games that are just crying for updates: Carrier Command, Midwinter, and yes - also Flightdeck;-)
The biggest problem with coding flightdeck was that it was 'realtime', everything happened on a clock so in essence it had a mini operating system built in to schedule all the tasks. Pretty complicated core for a game of that vintage...
That's also what made it fun to play though - it is a juggling act, attempting to keep as many planes in the air (and doing something useful) as you can at any time.
I'm sorry to see the slashdot editors cling to the obsolete imperial meter, which is clearly a very different unit from the metric meter which is used in the actual article. You see, the article refers to a sea that is 45 meters deep (this is presumed to be metric meters), which evidentally translates to a sea that 45 kilometers deep in imperial meters.
So one imperial meter is the same as a metric millimeter. I gotta remember that...
One major problem I can see is that people will be trolling meta data, just like they did in the regular web before search engines decided not to look at it anymore. Without accountability, meta data will always be unreliable.
While there are several approaches to accountability already present in the field, such as counting links to the data (like Google does), or having smart, professional, attractive moderators (like Slashdot does [1]), none of them are perfect yet, and I believe this is a problem that must be solved before any semantic web becomes useful.
[1] Ok, I may be karma whoring just a little here...;-)
I will never forget the hot Florida summer my girlfriend and I spent indoors hooked watching British and Australian Big Brother... I'm not kidding, I downloaded about 40 GB worth a month off of usenet as it was posted, quite fun to keep track of with the time differences. Marco should have won.
You are a sad person. A sad person with a girlfriend, true, but still a sad person.
And that girlfriend is a sad person too, so there!
Regarding your link, last nights' episode of Horizon on BBC did a fine job of discrediting fusion in sonoluminescence... They tried to reproduce the experiment and got all the flashes of light. However, the neutrons that were detected could not be matched to those flahes of light, ruling out the possibility of fusion.
I can understand Software that is forked from something stallman created (such as emacs or gcc).
But what about things like the linux kernel? It was created under the gnu license, but has almost no actual code created by stallman.
He nor the FSF deserve any credit what so ever.
He nor the FSF claim credit to it. The GNU/Linux thing was for distributions that include lots of GNU stuff and a Linux kernel, not for the kernel on its own.
Err, yes it is actually. It is copyright violation, and that is wrong.
if RMS was really spreading freedom...
That's the BSD argument, and I understand it to a point (it is naive, but ok). It has little to do with having moral clarity though. Moral clarity also doesn't mean working for free, or giving away everything you own/create for free.
you are very naive to think that RMS actually wrote 95% of that software.
I don't. I know he had a lot of help. All those people joined together under the name "GNU", and now he wants that name to be used when that software is distributed. It isn't actually required by the GNU licenses, but his request is not unreasonable.
95% may have been released under his license..but lets give credit where credit is due. If I release a program under the GPL today..would you say that RMS is behind it?
No, but why would I? If GNU releases a program today I would say that GNU is behind it. If someone then adds this program, and some more GNU programs, and some external program together and distributes it as a whole... Then I would say it is not unreasonable that GNU asks for some credit for its work, for example in the form of a mention on the box or something.
And I, in turn, don't mind doing so. I credit the people whose software I include in my own, even when the license doesn't require me to do so. It is simple professional courtesy; I expect it from others and I give it to others.
...and another thing I forgot to add: I believe that one day we _will_ all be driving electrical cars because there simply isn't any oil left to burn. And when we walk out on the streets we will sniff the fresh air and hit ourselves for not switching decades earlier.
Cutting energy production is always tough on the economy.
On the other hand, building alternative energy production capability, and selling equipment with lower energy usage (or investing in research for the same), might very well pay off handsomely. If the US had chosen to invest the money wasted on the war in Iraq on lowering its energy usage, not by raising prices or forcing people out of their cars, but simply by creating machinery that requires less energy and stimulating its use, and of course by building alternative energy sources, the country would be a lot better off at this point. You would be mostly free from the middle east, and you would be a world leader in new, clean technology. Of course the same is true for Europe, and I hope one day soon we will get leaders who understand this.
So this is not just about getting hurt. It is about new opportunities, for anyone willing to invest. The first major economy to realize this will have a golden future, being able to export its knowledge and equipment world wide while being largely independent from middle eastern oil.
Chances are this woulnd't end well for those currently in power in the middle east, but it could be argued that that power structure is an aberration caused by oil in the first place, and doesn't in fact benefit the majority of people living in the area. In other words, when oil money runs out we may see a few revolutions, followed by a more normal, stable situation.
Kyoto WOULD create a nasty economic downturn. Everyone over 30 can remember the last one, and it wasn't pretty. Worse, the Kyoto downturn would be PERMANENT.
In the economy there is no such thing as a permanent upturn or downturn.
Europeans dislike us, some HATE us, maybe they don't have our best interests at heart with this thing?
In any group that is large enough you will find people who hate just about anything, but on the whole "europeans" don't hate americans. Please do forgive us for being suspicious about your leaderships' goals, though.
Arguments of "Americans are selfish and stupid" are not likely to pursuade.
To summarize:
- No more grovelling towards the arab world.
- Significant expenditure in research will tremendously boost the economy.
- Significant expenditure in new, clean power plants (both big, like fusion, and small, like wind farms) also boost the economy. Wind farms are small enough to be owned by individuals.
- Export of new-found knowledge brings in further cash.
It is all a matter of perspective. You say "problem", I say "opportunity".
And if you are wondering how you should pay for all that research and all that new equipment, well somehow the billions for the war in Iraq were also found and this is, quite frankly, much more important.
I didn't want to reply anymore, feeding trolls and all that, but this is just too funny:
And, just so you know, when discussing one's strengths the proper French word is "fort", not "forte".
Contrast fort with forte . But hey, if you feel your reading skills are not a place that is strongly defended by military, that meaning is also fine by me:-)
really? Bill Gates donates billions of dollars a year to many charatable causes. What does RMS donate?
A lifetime worth of effort to provide freedom (in the form of free software) to everyone? It is easy for Gates to spend maybe 10% of his money on charities, he can't tell the difference anyway. RMS doesn't have much money (AFAIK) but he gives what he has.
if RMS really had moral clarity, he (and the FSF foundation) wouldn't go after people for violating the GPL.
Having moral clarity is not the same as being a pushover pacifist. Indeed, it means standing up to those who would do wrong. RMS is doing that.
if RMS had integrity and self-respect, he wouldn't have tried to change linux to GNU/linux.
A linux _distribution_ is (or was, at some point) 95% GNU software and 5% kernel. If you were the man behind that 95%, wouldn't you want to be credited for the part you did? RMS never wanted to rename the kernel, he wanted to rename distributions. And you know what, he has a pretty damn good point there.
How can you claim to be "ranting against naming conventions" when you and others replying offer situations in which you would use them - and your posts are specifically against HN!
It seems you are still mightily confused about the identities of the people posting here. As a clue, if you click on a message the name of the poster appears in the bar at the top. Messages that do not carry my name are not posted by me and do not represent my opinion.
Furthermore, the parent was specifically against HN!
The parent post of your post is my post, which is indeed specifically against HN. I'm being consistent here: I never claimed in any of my posts that I like HN in specific situations; I just don't like it at all. And I don't use emacs.
Perhaps it would simply be a better idea for you guys to - for the 100th time - not use HN if you don't like it and leave it at that.
No. HN must die. Its continued existence is polluting the minds of young programmers throughout the world. Once infected they become irrational, unable to distinguish between different posters on message boards, unable to understand the difference between type and meaning, and unable to carry a convincing argument.
Just to help _you_, the guy who likes HN in some situations is "sdpwslhnDcam" ("Slashdot poster who sometimes likes HN" Dcam). The guy who uses emacs is sdpwnlhnSwillden ("Slashdot poster who never likes HN" Swillden). I don't use emacs and don't like HN, and I'm sdpwnlhnJohannesg. And you are tsdwrtRobocrop ("trollish slashdot poster with reading trouble" Robocrop).
Since I don't take you seriously anymore, I'd suggest not bothering to reply. But you've already proven that reading skills are not your forte, and of course you are master of your own destiny, so feel free to post some more confused, meaningless drivel if you want. I've wasted enough time replying to it though.
Meaingless rant against perceived, yet utterly non-existant anti-Microsoftism: bad.
Given that the responses have all generally included situations in which the author would use a naming convention - sometimes HN itself - I think this is a perfectly valid position.
So "ranting against naming conventions" equals "ranting against Microsoft"? I'm trying very hard to understand how you make that particular leap of logic... Could you possibly believe that Microsoft invented the concept of naming conventions?
Of course there is no way to prove it, but I am 100% certain that the majority of bitching and moaning we hear about HN and how "evil" it is results from the fact that people see it as a Microsoft idea, and we all now how cool it is to bag on anything from Microsoft. If Linus had proposed it, you'd have a Hungarian notation t-shirt.
I fail to understand why you bring this up again and again. Can we not dislike something simply because it is a bad idea?
You know, the logic we all supposedly learned in school. It grates on me to hear people kneejerk dismiss any concept such as HN for their own political reasons.
I gave technical reasons. You responded by arrogantly assuming I don't like it because it is from Microsoft. Did you learn that in school too?
Particularly when the person complaining about it tells me that if I use it, I must be a sloppy programmer who writes buggy code.
I didn't actually do that. Here's something you may one day come to realize: on the message board called "slashdot" there are multiple users, each with his own ideas and agenda. Ranting against one after feeling slighted by another doesn't help at all.
All naming conventions, coding standards, programming templates, etc work towards a common goal: making code immediately meaningful to the reader/maintainer - lending context to locality. This in turn makes code more useful, more extensible, and easier to write. And this should be our goal - no matter what tools we use to achieve it,
Meaningful discussion: good.
...no matter which hated company or individual backs the concept.
Meaingless rant against perceived, yet utterly non-existant anti-Microsoftism: bad.
Translation: because some people use it poorly, it shouldn't be used.
I'd agree if it was only _some_ people that use it poorly. There is overwhelming evidence, however, that it is the majority that does this. This points to a flaw in the design of the methodology: it invites people to do the wrong thing. As a result I consider it more of a hindrance than a help.
A better translation would therefore be: because _most_ people use it poorly, it shouldn't be used.
HN descriptors are not mean to be "pronouncable", they are a compact way of expressing meaning.
Actually they express _type_, not meaning. Confusing the two is not a good sign. Also, I find that software written to be pronouncable (as opposed to, say, source that leaves out all the vowels in a misguided attempt to be "shorter") is much more maintainable. Tacking on these strings simply does not help that goal.
I also place question marks on any methodology that apparently strives to reduce the readability of software.
In addition to being similar to point one
Only in the sense that, once again, HN invites people to do the wrong thing. The actual problem is quite different.
this argument also applies to pretty much every other naming convention as well. So if you call your variable "PointerToThing" but change it to a reference, you still have to change the name of the variable
My argument is that it is bad to assign names based on type. A different encoding of the type doesn't change that, it is still a bad idea. PointerToThing means absolutely nothing to me, since there is no meaning implied in it. This is _exactly_ what I meant: you provided a type but a completely meaningless name, and I (taking on the role of maintenance program for the moment) have no clue what you could be pointing to.
The only way you don't have to change your variable name when you change the type/use of the variable is if you use meaningless variable names.
As another poster already correctly pointed out, confusing type and use is not a good sign of your understanding of the problem. But leaving that aside for a moment, let's try an example. Suppose I have an industrial control application, containing code in either your or my notation. Which is clearer:
if (PointerToThing->Status () == OPEN) { PointerToThing->Close (); };
...or...
if (NitrogenValve->Status () == OPEN) { NitrogenValve->Close (); };
? Personally I prefer the second, since I can tell what it is doing. In the first case I'm left to guess, even though I can tell I'm doing something with a pointer.
Problem here is that this relies upon your opinion which is certainly subjective, certainly limited, and probably doesn't apply to what other people are working on.
Since you are disagreeign with my argument, evidentally you believe that type is more important than both scope and meaning. I suppose we could have an argument about scope, but the very idea that type is more important than meaning is utterly ridiculous.
If variable type always didn't matter, nobody would have invented Hungarian notation.
Actually I said it was of lesser importance than meaning and scope. As to how the invention of HN implies a need for it, I'm uncertain. People invent meaningless crap all the time.
The other arguments are exactly the same nonsense.
I presented just the four you refuted. What other arguments you may have seen exist only in your imagination.
I really wonder if you people would be so anti-HN if Linus had invented it. Just admit it - you're anti-HN because it's an idea fostered by Microsoft.
For that silly ad-hominem you really deserve a -1, troll. I don't give a flying fuck who invented it. I just don't like it. I actually care about the maintenance of the software I'm responsible for, and I find HN creates much more of a mess than it solves. But hey, if you find it hard to attack the message you can always try your luck attacking the messenger.
- HN seems, for many people, to serve as a replacement for the actual name. It is easy to write psz1 and psz2 when you want two pointers to zero-terminated strings, but really - I'd rather have their meaning than their type. You may argue that this is simply bad usage (and I'd agree) but I've seen too much code by now that does this to believe it is coincidental. Coming up with good names for variables is hard. Once you have a few characters, even if they don't mean much, people tend to stop thinking and just use it.
- HN adds long strings of unpronouncable garbage throughout the source. That decreases general readability.
- When a variable changes type, you should also rename it everywhere it is used. People tend to not do this, resulting in a system that actually gives the wrong information.
- HN places a great deal of stress on variable type. In my not so humble opinion type is important, but not quite _that_ important. In reality I find myself caring about meaning, then about scope, and finally about type - in that order. And you should be thinking "objects" anyway, not actually caring about type since that's all encapsulated.
"Dragons Breath" on the Amiga had a spell system that allowed you to make your own spells, pretty much as you suggest. I never played the game myself, but my little brother was constantly brewing up new plagues and stuff. He got quite good at it, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Are they? Both NVidia and ATI base their workstation boards on their gaming boards, and AFAIK it is generally understood they are damn near identical. Is there any difference worth mentioning between these cards and their gaming equivalents? If so, what and why?
I have no doubt about technical feasibility, but financial may be a different question. Still, there are some old games that are just crying for updates: Carrier Command, Midwinter, and yes - also Flightdeck ;-)
The biggest problem with coding flightdeck was that it was 'realtime', everything happened on a clock so in essence it had a mini operating system built in to schedule all the tasks. Pretty complicated core for a game of that vintage...
That's also what made it fun to play though - it is a juggling act, attempting to keep as many planes in the air (and doing something useful) as you can at any time.
Anyway, thanks for the memories ;-)
You don't suppose a modernized 3D version is possible, do you? ;-)
Gee, american pecks are even smaller than I already thought...
So one imperial meter is the same as a metric millimeter. I gotta remember that...
So shouldn't it be called ONE_COPY_SOCKETS, then?
Actually it is 2^11 (which is 2048) times faster.
Yeah, that is ridiculous. Everyone knows Zeist is a small town in the Netherlands.
Maybe, but not in Europe. Your laws end where your borders end. Outside the US, your constitution has about as much value as a sheet of toilet paper.
While there are several approaches to accountability already present in the field, such as counting links to the data (like Google does), or having smart, professional, attractive moderators (like Slashdot does [1]), none of them are perfect yet, and I believe this is a problem that must be solved before any semantic web becomes useful.
[1] Ok, I may be karma whoring just a little here... ;-)
You are a sad person. A sad person with a girlfriend, true, but still a sad person.
And that girlfriend is a sad person too, so there!
Looks like we'll have to do this the hard way...
He nor the FSF claim credit to it. The GNU/Linux thing was for distributions that include lots of GNU stuff and a Linux kernel, not for the kernel on its own.
Err, yes it is actually. It is copyright violation, and that is wrong.
if RMS was really spreading freedom...
That's the BSD argument, and I understand it to a point (it is naive, but ok). It has little to do with having moral clarity though. Moral clarity also doesn't mean working for free, or giving away everything you own/create for free.
you are very naive to think that RMS actually wrote 95% of that software.
I don't. I know he had a lot of help. All those people joined together under the name "GNU", and now he wants that name to be used when that software is distributed. It isn't actually required by the GNU licenses, but his request is not unreasonable.
95% may have been released under his license..but lets give credit where credit is due. If I release a program under the GPL today..would you say that RMS is behind it?
No, but why would I? If GNU releases a program today I would say that GNU is behind it. If someone then adds this program, and some more GNU programs, and some external program together and distributes it as a whole... Then I would say it is not unreasonable that GNU asks for some credit for its work, for example in the form of a mention on the box or something.
And I, in turn, don't mind doing so. I credit the people whose software I include in my own, even when the license doesn't require me to do so. It is simple professional courtesy; I expect it from others and I give it to others.
...and another thing I forgot to add: I believe that one day we _will_ all be driving electrical cars because there simply isn't any oil left to burn. And when we walk out on the streets we will sniff the fresh air and hit ourselves for not switching decades earlier.
On the other hand, building alternative energy production capability, and selling equipment with lower energy usage (or investing in research for the same), might very well pay off handsomely. If the US had chosen to invest the money wasted on the war in Iraq on lowering its energy usage, not by raising prices or forcing people out of their cars, but simply by creating machinery that requires less energy and stimulating its use, and of course by building alternative energy sources, the country would be a lot better off at this point. You would be mostly free from the middle east, and you would be a world leader in new, clean technology. Of course the same is true for Europe, and I hope one day soon we will get leaders who understand this.
So this is not just about getting hurt. It is about new opportunities, for anyone willing to invest. The first major economy to realize this will have a golden future, being able to export its knowledge and equipment world wide while being largely independent from middle eastern oil.
Chances are this woulnd't end well for those currently in power in the middle east, but it could be argued that that power structure is an aberration caused by oil in the first place, and doesn't in fact benefit the majority of people living in the area. In other words, when oil money runs out we may see a few revolutions, followed by a more normal, stable situation.
Kyoto WOULD create a nasty economic downturn. Everyone over 30 can remember the last one, and it wasn't pretty. Worse, the Kyoto downturn would be PERMANENT.
In the economy there is no such thing as a permanent upturn or downturn.
Europeans dislike us, some HATE us, maybe they don't have our best interests at heart with this thing?
In any group that is large enough you will find people who hate just about anything, but on the whole "europeans" don't hate americans. Please do forgive us for being suspicious about your leaderships' goals, though. Arguments of "Americans are selfish and stupid" are not likely to pursuade.
To summarize:
- No more grovelling towards the arab world.
- Significant expenditure in research will tremendously boost the economy.
- Significant expenditure in new, clean power plants (both big, like fusion, and small, like wind farms) also boost the economy. Wind farms are small enough to be owned by individuals.
- Export of new-found knowledge brings in further cash.
It is all a matter of perspective. You say "problem", I say "opportunity".
And if you are wondering how you should pay for all that research and all that new equipment, well somehow the billions for the war in Iraq were also found and this is, quite frankly, much more important.
And, just so you know, when discussing one's strengths the proper French word is "fort", not "forte".
Contrast fort with forte . But hey, if you feel your reading skills are not a place that is strongly defended by military, that meaning is also fine by me :-)
A lifetime worth of effort to provide freedom (in the form of free software) to everyone? It is easy for Gates to spend maybe 10% of his money on charities, he can't tell the difference anyway. RMS doesn't have much money (AFAIK) but he gives what he has.
if RMS really had moral clarity, he (and the FSF foundation) wouldn't go after people for violating the GPL.
Having moral clarity is not the same as being a pushover pacifist. Indeed, it means standing up to those who would do wrong. RMS is doing that.
if RMS had integrity and self-respect, he wouldn't have tried to change linux to GNU/linux.
A linux _distribution_ is (or was, at some point) 95% GNU software and 5% kernel. If you were the man behind that 95%, wouldn't you want to be credited for the part you did? RMS never wanted to rename the kernel, he wanted to rename distributions. And you know what, he has a pretty damn good point there.
It seems you are still mightily confused about the identities of the people posting here. As a clue, if you click on a message the name of the poster appears in the bar at the top. Messages that do not carry my name are not posted by me and do not represent my opinion.
Furthermore, the parent was specifically against HN!
The parent post of your post is my post, which is indeed specifically against HN. I'm being consistent here: I never claimed in any of my posts that I like HN in specific situations; I just don't like it at all. And I don't use emacs.
Perhaps it would simply be a better idea for you guys to - for the 100th time - not use HN if you don't like it and leave it at that.
No. HN must die. Its continued existence is polluting the minds of young programmers throughout the world. Once infected they become irrational, unable to distinguish between different posters on message boards, unable to understand the difference between type and meaning, and unable to carry a convincing argument.
Just to help _you_, the guy who likes HN in some situations is "sdpwslhnDcam" ("Slashdot poster who sometimes likes HN" Dcam). The guy who uses emacs is sdpwnlhnSwillden ("Slashdot poster who never likes HN" Swillden). I don't use emacs and don't like HN, and I'm sdpwnlhnJohannesg. And you are tsdwrtRobocrop ("trollish slashdot poster with reading trouble" Robocrop).
Since I don't take you seriously anymore, I'd suggest not bothering to reply. But you've already proven that reading skills are not your forte, and of course you are master of your own destiny, so feel free to post some more confused, meaningless drivel if you want. I've wasted enough time replying to it though.
Given that the responses have all generally included situations in which the author would use a naming convention - sometimes HN itself - I think this is a perfectly valid position.
So "ranting against naming conventions" equals "ranting against Microsoft"? I'm trying very hard to understand how you make that particular leap of logic... Could you possibly believe that Microsoft invented the concept of naming conventions?
Of course there is no way to prove it, but I am 100% certain that the majority of bitching and moaning we hear about HN and how "evil" it is results from the fact that people see it as a Microsoft idea, and we all now how cool it is to bag on anything from Microsoft. If Linus had proposed it, you'd have a Hungarian notation t-shirt.
I fail to understand why you bring this up again and again. Can we not dislike something simply because it is a bad idea?
I gave technical reasons. You responded by arrogantly assuming I don't like it because it is from Microsoft. Did you learn that in school too?
Particularly when the person complaining about it tells me that if I use it, I must be a sloppy programmer who writes buggy code.
I didn't actually do that. Here's something you may one day come to realize: on the message board called "slashdot" there are multiple users, each with his own ideas and agenda. Ranting against one after feeling slighted by another doesn't help at all.
All naming conventions, coding standards, programming templates, etc work towards a common goal: making code immediately meaningful to the reader/maintainer - lending context to locality. This in turn makes code more useful, more extensible, and easier to write. And this should be our goal - no matter what tools we use to achieve it,
Meaningful discussion: good.
Meaingless rant against perceived, yet utterly non-existant anti-Microsoftism: bad.
Translation: because some people use it poorly, it shouldn't be used.
I'd agree if it was only _some_ people that use it poorly. There is overwhelming evidence, however, that it is the majority that does this. This points to a flaw in the design of the methodology: it invites people to do the wrong thing. As a result I consider it more of a hindrance than a help.
A better translation would therefore be: because _most_ people use it poorly, it shouldn't be used.
HN descriptors are not mean to be "pronouncable", they are a compact way of expressing meaning.
Actually they express _type_, not meaning. Confusing the two is not a good sign. Also, I find that software written to be pronouncable (as opposed to, say, source that leaves out all the vowels in a misguided attempt to be "shorter") is much more maintainable. Tacking on these strings simply does not help that goal.
I also place question marks on any methodology that apparently strives to reduce the readability of software.
In addition to being similar to point one
Only in the sense that, once again, HN invites people to do the wrong thing. The actual problem is quite different.
this argument also applies to pretty much every other naming convention as well. So if you call your variable "PointerToThing" but change it to a reference, you still have to change the name of the variable
My argument is that it is bad to assign names based on type. A different encoding of the type doesn't change that, it is still a bad idea. PointerToThing means absolutely nothing to me, since there is no meaning implied in it. This is _exactly_ what I meant: you provided a type but a completely meaningless name, and I (taking on the role of maintenance program for the moment) have no clue what you could be pointing to.
The only way you don't have to change your variable name when you change the type/use of the variable is if you use meaningless variable names.
As another poster already correctly pointed out, confusing type and use is not a good sign of your understanding of the problem. But leaving that aside for a moment, let's try an example. Suppose I have an industrial control application, containing code in either your or my notation. Which is clearer:
if (PointerToThing->Status () == OPEN) { PointerToThing->Close (); };
? Personally I prefer the second, since I can tell what it is doing. In the first case I'm left to guess, even though I can tell I'm doing something with a pointer.
Problem here is that this relies upon your opinion which is certainly subjective, certainly limited, and probably doesn't apply to what other people are working on.
Since you are disagreeign with my argument, evidentally you believe that type is more important than both scope and meaning. I suppose we could have an argument about scope, but the very idea that type is more important than meaning is utterly ridiculous.
If variable type always didn't matter, nobody would have invented Hungarian notation.
Actually I said it was of lesser importance than meaning and scope. As to how the invention of HN implies a need for it, I'm uncertain. People invent meaningless crap all the time.
The other arguments are exactly the same nonsense.
I presented just the four you refuted. What other arguments you may have seen exist only in your imagination.
I really wonder if you people would be so anti-HN if Linus had invented it. Just admit it - you're anti-HN because it's an idea fostered by Microsoft.
For that silly ad-hominem you really deserve a -1, troll. I don't give a flying fuck who invented it. I just don't like it. I actually care about the maintenance of the software I'm responsible for, and I find HN creates much more of a mess than it solves. But hey, if you find it hard to attack the message you can always try your luck attacking the messenger.
- HN seems, for many people, to serve as a replacement for the actual name. It is easy to write psz1 and psz2 when you want two pointers to zero-terminated strings, but really - I'd rather have their meaning than their type. You may argue that this is simply bad usage (and I'd agree) but I've seen too much code by now that does this to believe it is coincidental. Coming up with good names for variables is hard. Once you have a few characters, even if they don't mean much, people tend to stop thinking and just use it.
- HN adds long strings of unpronouncable garbage throughout the source. That decreases general readability.
- When a variable changes type, you should also rename it everywhere it is used. People tend to not do this, resulting in a system that actually gives the wrong information.
- HN places a great deal of stress on variable type. In my not so humble opinion type is important, but not quite _that_ important. In reality I find myself caring about meaning, then about scope, and finally about type - in that order. And you should be thinking "objects" anyway, not actually caring about type since that's all encapsulated.
More here...
While there is no universally agreed standard for this, you might want to look at strncasecmp().