I was hoping that the apparent juxtaposition between the actual truth of the statement, and the fact that "Halting Problem" does also refer to a traffic jam, would create the illusion of humor... Until you shattered it.
Sorry, but this just proves my point. If you think C and C++ are basically the same you do not understand C++. That's ok, but don't presume that you can make sweeping statements like that and be taken serious by people like me (admittedly, that is only important if you try to get hired by us...).
Here's the major difference, and it isn't anything technical really:
Programming in C, you will always be writing code in the solution domain. And every little thing that doesn't involve manipulation of a built-in type (think strings or arrays) is a source of pain and a potential hazard.
Programming in C++, assuming you know what you are doing (too many people don't), you will be writing code in the problem domain. You no longer worry about things like strings (you have a class that lets you treat it like a built-in type) or arrays (you have a template that makes sure you do not overrun any boundaries).
Now, I'm _not_ saying that C++ is the perfect language (it isn't), or that it should be used for everything (it shouldn't), or that there are no other languages out there that don't have those features (there are). What I am saying is that C++ is a completely different language from C, and throwing them together like that doesn't make any sense. You might as well say "C/SmallTalk/Python is a bad language for certain purposes."
Picking apart your message a bit, I note that Java also shares many attributes with C++. Does that mean there is almost always a better alternative for it as well?
And I'm not entirely certain what you mean with "you guys might not like to be grouped together", but let me assure you I am not a computer language;-)
Just looking at sourceforge for a moment, I see that it has 13785 projects in C, 13922 projects in C++, and 12588 in Java. That places the three languages at roughly the same level.
No other languages come even close to these numbers, although I still have some hope for the future of Euler. Actually I don't, just kidding;-)
The grandparent poster has a point, but he has it in the wrong context. Sometimes you see statements like, "C/C++ is a bad language". In cases such as these the two languages are obviously treated as one language, which has a specific property. However, since they are two very different languages (even though one fully encapsulates the other!), such statements are usually indicative of a severe lack of understanding of C++.
However, in this context this isn't a problem. It is perfectly valid to say things like, "there are more projects in C and C++ than in Java". It may or may not be true (I don't know), but at least it doesn't presume C and C++ are the same language.
Still, I understand the problem with the "C/C++" phrase. Usually it is used by people who think there is only one language (or maybe one language and another that is 99% the same, except it has "classes"). It bothers me because I am one of those apparently rare people who has programmed lots in both languages, and now hates C and loves C++. Throwing them together as if they are the same feels wrong.
Do you honestly think anyone cares? In other countries they think of the Netherlands as Holland. Only people from the province seem to experience this fetishistic need to say they live somewhere else. Its rather pathetic, really.
So you are saying Java is impressive because it can draw a dozen large polygons (i.e. windows). Well, duh: have you ever checked out just how many polygons you need to push these days before people are impressed? Hint: millions...
Looking glass is cute, but also utterly useless, both as a system and as a performance indicator.
Consider this: that's further away from us than we are from the earliest memories of the start of human civilisation (say, 5000 years or so ago). I find it extremely hard to believe there will still be humans on this planet by then, AND them still remembering (let alone using) anything we have thought up.
Then again, for some reason the notion of one of them going, "oh crap you mean that after doing nothing for ***8000*** years I now have to stay in the weekend to fix this!?" seems well within the realm of the possible...
Dark Castle stank. Platforming had already been perfected on the 8-bit machines, and Dark Castle was a distinct step backwards. Yes, it used the mouse. It also made it damn near impossible to move your sprite around by virtue of an impossible keyboard layout (hint: the keys with the arrows on them are commonly understood to move things in the direction the arrows are pointing...). And the mouse input was a gimmick.
Deja Vu was a much better game, albeit a bit simple (I finished it in one not even very long sitting). Uninvited and Shadowgate, on the other hand... Apart from an overdose of sudden death, these were great games. And I loved the game style. Too bad no more were ever made.
Well, anonymous sir, maybe they should think of it like this: what do they want to leave for their children? A war-torn desert where all freedom is crushed by religious zealots and / or local warlords, and the population lives in abject poverty? Or perhaps something better? It may just be necessary to swallow all that damn pride and, as I said before, do something constructive for a change.
As the article suggests, some Iraqi's appear to be doing this already... Too bad really about that (supposedly) small group that thinks differently.
The poll indicates 62% of the/. crowd would happily fly in that ship on monday. It would be interesting to repeat the poll now and see if it is still this high.
And despite this: it *is* rocket science, and an experimental vehicle to boot. It isn't surprising there are some problems. Let's all be happy the pilot actually survived.
2. Stop trying to destroy everything the americans or their allies have touched, and instead start working constructively on rebuilding the country?
That is what my country did after WW2, when the place was in ruins. As a result I have the privilege of living in one of the richest countries of the world.
Someone should go and break his legs, that way the medical bills can eat into his profit even further. The message it sends to other spammers is also worth it.
Actually this is a great idea. Just go to these events with a stack of various Linux distro's and hand them out for free. If you do it as the people are coming in you will then be able to observe Microsoft representatives in various interesting colors;-) It also blows away part of their argument right then and there, thereby seriously undermining the rest.
Of course. If I wanted to drown people I could just as well use salt water. You don't think I'd care about the salt water stinging their eyes before they die, now do you?;-)
Are you aware of how difficult of a task developing a reusable man-capable orbital launch vehicle is?
I'm sure that given the criteria for designing "a space shuttle" they have developed an excellent space shuttle. The problem is that those design criteria were poor. A large, reuseable shuttle is just not something anyone needs: it carries all that stuff for getting back safely and landing, wasting precious kilograms that could have been used to haul more freight into orbit (which _is_ useful). What we need is the capacity to launch large loads that do not come back (like space stations, Mars vehicles, etc.). What we also need is the capacity to return humans safely to Earth. The shuttle is neither of these.
Don't get me wrong, it is a cool piece of hardware, but it is not the right solution for any problem we have at this time. Its exorbitant launch cost and 1 in 50 failure rate will ensure it remains that way.
Not only has the Ariane 5 blown up on 3 out of 18 launches, the whole project had to have a big bailout and they cancelled their Hermes vehicle to carry people up.
The bailout means nothing. The launch market has virtually collapsed in the last years. There are no large launchers surviving without government support anywhere in the world (and don't for a moment kid yourself to think that toy launchers like for the X-prize can compete with them). As for Hermes - thankfully Europe realized in time that like the shuttle it is a solution that has no associated problem. Future European astronauts will be flying in capsules.
Sticking yields all over the place won't do much for deterministic behaviour or performance
If you care about deterministic behaviour you should not use threads in the first place. But that's besides the point: you were arguing that because he wasn't calling yield() his software was not working. That's an attitude that went out of fashion with Windows 3.1. You are ignorant about modern operating systems, and apparently unwiling to learn.
It might not be the yield() command specifically,...
You wrote "If you don't know why you need to specfically yield...". The answer is simple: you DON'T need to specifically yield. I would have forgiven you for this, except that you then went on to also say "Just from your explanation, I can raise issues in basic design. You show a clear lack of understanding on how to accomplish the task. It's scary. It's unfortunate that switching OS "fixed" your problem, since you didn't understand what caused the problem in the first place." which was a TOTALLY undeserved attack. It is YOU who does not understand basic programming theory.
I don't know where that list of functions came from, but at least join() is fundamentally different from yield() (hint: one of them ENDS a thread, and the other SUSPENDS it temporarily. If you do not know the difference, think of it as the difference between dying and going to sleep).
...just wonder why you think threading is no longer relevant...
Oh dear, that's not what I said at all is it? I said calling yield() all over the place is no longer relevant. But thanks for the strawman attack - it just shows the weakness of your argument. Now crawl back under the rock you came from before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
So how did you get a girlfriend with a remote control option, then?
Here's the major difference, and it isn't anything technical really:
Programming in C, you will always be writing code in the solution domain. And every little thing that doesn't involve manipulation of a built-in type (think strings or arrays) is a source of pain and a potential hazard.
Programming in C++, assuming you know what you are doing (too many people don't), you will be writing code in the problem domain. You no longer worry about things like strings (you have a class that lets you treat it like a built-in type) or arrays (you have a template that makes sure you do not overrun any boundaries).
Now, I'm _not_ saying that C++ is the perfect language (it isn't), or that it should be used for everything (it shouldn't), or that there are no other languages out there that don't have those features (there are). What I am saying is that C++ is a completely different language from C, and throwing them together like that doesn't make any sense. You might as well say "C/SmallTalk/Python is a bad language for certain purposes."
Picking apart your message a bit, I note that Java also shares many attributes with C++. Does that mean there is almost always a better alternative for it as well?
And I'm not entirely certain what you mean with "you guys might not like to be grouped together", but let me assure you I am not a computer language ;-)
No other languages come even close to these numbers, although I still have some hope for the future of Euler. Actually I don't, just kidding ;-)
However, in this context this isn't a problem. It is perfectly valid to say things like, "there are more projects in C and C++ than in Java". It may or may not be true (I don't know), but at least it doesn't presume C and C++ are the same language.
Still, I understand the problem with the "C/C++" phrase. Usually it is used by people who think there is only one language (or maybe one language and another that is 99% the same, except it has "classes"). It bothers me because I am one of those apparently rare people who has programmed lots in both languages, and now hates C and loves C++. Throwing them together as if they are the same feels wrong.
Since this problem OBVIOUSLY reduces to the Halting Problem, it is easily proven that you cannot, in fact, predict traffic jams.
Oh, and Philips moved to Amsterdam years ago...
Looking glass is cute, but also utterly useless, both as a system and as a performance indicator.
Then again, for some reason the notion of one of them going, "oh crap you mean that after doing nothing for ***8000*** years I now have to stay in the weekend to fix this!?" seems well within the realm of the possible...
Deja Vu was a much better game, albeit a bit simple (I finished it in one not even very long sitting). Uninvited and Shadowgate, on the other hand... Apart from an overdose of sudden death, these were great games. And I loved the game style. Too bad no more were ever made.
"Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!" ;-)
The fact that you don't seem to realize this confirms they have been wildly succesful doing just that...
As the article suggests, some Iraqi's appear to be doing this already... Too bad really about that (supposedly) small group that thinks differently.
And despite this: it *is* rocket science, and an experimental vehicle to boot. It isn't surprising there are some problems. Let's all be happy the pilot actually survived.
2. Stop trying to destroy everything the americans or their allies have touched, and instead start working constructively on rebuilding the country?
That is what my country did after WW2, when the place was in ruins. As a result I have the privilege of living in one of the richest countries of the world.
Someone should go and break his legs, that way the medical bills can eat into his profit even further. The message it sends to other spammers is also worth it.
Actually this is a great idea. Just go to these events with a stack of various Linux distro's and hand them out for free. If you do it as the people are coming in you will then be able to observe Microsoft representatives in various interesting colors ;-) It also blows away part of their argument right then and there, thereby seriously undermining the rest.
I'm afraid to ask what sort of gamer you were before that time...
Of course. If I wanted to drown people I could just as well use salt water. You don't think I'd care about the salt water stinging their eyes before they die, now do you? ;-)
If you want to do something like that, do it in the middle east. That way you are also contributing something tangible towards world peace.
I'm sure that given the criteria for designing "a space shuttle" they have developed an excellent space shuttle. The problem is that those design criteria were poor. A large, reuseable shuttle is just not something anyone needs: it carries all that stuff for getting back safely and landing, wasting precious kilograms that could have been used to haul more freight into orbit (which _is_ useful). What we need is the capacity to launch large loads that do not come back (like space stations, Mars vehicles, etc.). What we also need is the capacity to return humans safely to Earth. The shuttle is neither of these.
Don't get me wrong, it is a cool piece of hardware, but it is not the right solution for any problem we have at this time. Its exorbitant launch cost and 1 in 50 failure rate will ensure it remains that way.
Not only has the Ariane 5 blown up on 3 out of 18 launches, the whole project had to have a big bailout and they cancelled their Hermes vehicle to carry people up.
The bailout means nothing. The launch market has virtually collapsed in the last years. There are no large launchers surviving without government support anywhere in the world (and don't for a moment kid yourself to think that toy launchers like for the X-prize can compete with them). As for Hermes - thankfully Europe realized in time that like the shuttle it is a solution that has no associated problem. Future European astronauts will be flying in capsules.
If you care about deterministic behaviour you should not use threads in the first place. But that's besides the point: you were arguing that because he wasn't calling yield() his software was not working. That's an attitude that went out of fashion with Windows 3.1. You are ignorant about modern operating systems, and apparently unwiling to learn.
It might not be the yield() command specifically, ...
You wrote "If you don't know why you need to specfically yield...". The answer is simple: you DON'T need to specifically yield. I would have forgiven you for this, except that you then went on to also say "Just from your explanation, I can raise issues in basic design. You show a clear lack of understanding on how to accomplish the task. It's scary. It's unfortunate that switching OS "fixed" your problem, since you didn't understand what caused the problem in the first place." which was a TOTALLY undeserved attack. It is YOU who does not understand basic programming theory.
I don't know where that list of functions came from, but at least join() is fundamentally different from yield() (hint: one of them ENDS a thread, and the other SUSPENDS it temporarily. If you do not know the difference, think of it as the difference between dying and going to sleep).
Oh dear, that's not what I said at all is it? I said calling yield() all over the place is no longer relevant. But thanks for the strawman attack - it just shows the weakness of your argument. Now crawl back under the rock you came from before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
It was called "polyglot", and I'm sure if you google around a bit you'll find it. Sorry, I'm too tired to do it for you...