Unfortunately, Theora will stay irrelevant where it matters most. In sites like Youtube, h264 will prevail. And this time, h264 is the (much) better tech as well. To get the same quality as h264 video, Theora video needs higher bit rates, which translates to higher traffic, and in the end costs more money. The much higher popularity of h264 compared to Theora doesn't help, either.
Correction: it is a problem if you cannot use shared libraries or the like, which is common with embedded devices that get their firmware flashed on, because you must link everything statically in the firmware. The LGPL then demands that it shall be possible for others to link another version of the library to the firmware, which usually means you have to release the firmware source, or the object files.
Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth
on
Leaving the GPL Behind
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The price is compliance with the GPL.
This price is often too high, since it demands that the parts you link the library to become GPL, which in turn often encompasses the entire project.
The way we evolved can be a hint about efficiency. For example, bipedal movement turned out to be pretty efficient on a human scale, while eight legs like a spider are not. Therefore, it is important to know *why* things evolved the way they did. Was it because of energy efficiency? Adaptation to local predators? etc.
the big label records AREN'T there to fuck everyone over. They're just best at making everything that work
No one disputes that. In fact, this is the very problem. Big labels want to make money. No matter what. Enforce DRM, put musicians under draconian contracts, burn out new pop singers, who cares, there are more they can burn out, etc.
One particular example is Britney Spears. If you look up her early singing performances in YouTube, it is hard to believe this is the same girl. She had a great voice back then. But rumors say that she was forced to change her tone in her pop releases. Essentially, she was forced to destroy her voice.
Another example are the contracts forced upon pop casting show candidates. "We own every music you make in the next 36 months", "you must appear at concerts XYZ, on talk shows ABC, you must advertise for company Z..."
Make no mistake. The shining exterior of the music industry covers the cold, tyrannical, heartless 100% business interior.
Or worse. multi-paradigm programming is akin to messy code.
Not necessarily. D is multi-paradigmatic with a much nicer syntax. C# has a nice functional core, even though it started as an OOP language. Do not let the C++ syntax problems fool you; C++ syntax sucks no matter what you want to do:)
In reality, there are examples where C++ induces 5-10% run-time overhead compared to the same code in FORTRAN 77 when compiling numerically intensive code using classes/templates.
5-10% is a margin where compiler flags and the used compiler are relevant. Also, there is always the possibility that expression templates weren't used properly..
Its not that they don't want to. Often, they could do it with their skills, but other factors stop them from doing so. Like, budget, deadlines.
Of course there is also the fact that people are lazy, and it is just so inconvenient to worry about writing that parser with security in mind, right? "It is not motivating, and I want to see something cool, so lets hack the parser, I will do it properly later" (which never happens)...
Once you start using generic programming, user-defined operators make sense all of a sudden. Also, if you want to define your own little algebra, you really do not want to verbosely write the expressions. a*(b+c) is preferred over multiply(a,add(b,c)) .
Oh, and moving towards Java would mostly equal devolution. Please choose a better target.
Actually, no. I have seen many problems with legacy Java code that did work properly - in 90% of all cases. And this assumes you don't jump from, say, the SE to the ME.
No, because there is nothing that can replace it. Look at the range it covers. Give me a language that can replace this, and I'm truly happy, because C++ is not a shining beacon of light, C++ is a necessary evil until something can truly replace it.
Oh, and mind the amount of C++ code out there I'd need to interface with. D is the closest thing out there, but it still falls short (well, perhaps until D 2.0 comes out).
Include files are used as some sort of interface 99% of the time. Count the amount of include files without include guards. This means that include files are used in one limited way almost always. If headers are used like module interfaces, then it would be better to support modules in the first place.
Plus, you have to manually take care that stuff isn't defined multiple times (which can happen even with include guards), templates have to be re-evaluated all the time, headers included in include files propagate and can affect compile time as well....
As for why they are still around: backwards compatibility...
A GC is a useful feature though, because it frees us from having to distinguish between heap and stack, and more importantly it frees us from having to deal with the lifespan of a variable directly being related to the stack. The way programs are written nowadays often does not work well with stack lifespans. Yes, if done properly, this is a non-issue in 90% of the time (because of shared_ptr for dynamic stuff), however there are cases where a GC would have been great.
If you want to take out templates and multiple inheritance, you do not understand what templates are actually used for nowadays. Please look up: generic programming, template metaprogramming, modern C++ (no, 1995 style C++ is not modern) and then come back. Generic programming alone is so powerful it becomes obvious why C++ is headed in this direction. And no, neither C# nor Java support GP (their generics are far too primitive).
This comes from someone who uses C++ for a living. Note that C++ is full of problems. You identified none of them though, and none of your statements are correct.
Most of C++'s superior performance comes back once you start using metaprogramming. Note, modern C++ does not outperform Java because of low-level bit fiddling, it outperforms Java because of its ability to do work at compile-time. Once one starts to do this, it becomes apparent just how many class hierarchies actually never require run-time polymorphism (and only polymorphism at compile-time). As a result, the actual class hierarchies are dramatically reduced, because most classes in Java are just poor man's concepts (as in C++ concepts) or poor man's Haskell typeclasses.
Also, C++ is multi-paradigmatic, and does not try to shoehorn everything into the OOP paradigm, which means the code can fit the problem better. For instance, I lost count of how often I use boost.lambda, or boost.phoenix, or bind, which all are sort of implementations of lambda.
Then there are expression templates, which allows you to do things like matrix multiplications which even outperform Fortran.
C++ is being used in areas where speed matters. WITH templates. In fact, expression templates are one of the primary tools for writing fast code in C++ without having to go to a low semantic level, like in C. Using expression templates, I can write the actual expression, and the templates will unroll to form the optimized code. Yes, this is used in practice. Google for Blitz++ for an example.
Note though that concepts can sort of be emulated in a limited way by using static asserts. Also, variadic templates are introduced, which significantly reduce compile time and size of error messages (because for example boost.bind does not need 10 overloads to support 1 argument, or 2, or 3...). So things are not all that bad.
Yeah, but it is reasonable. Concepts are a complex feature, and C++ is an (overly) complex language. Do you really want to hold back all the other very important features like lambda, rvalue references, variadic templates, type deduction etc. just because of concepts?
Or a crowbar for anybody who thinks languages make things automatically safe.
If you are a good programmer, you can do safe programs in C++ or any other language. If you are a bad programmer, you can't do that in C++ or any other language.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, imagine LLVM in a browser..
So in future, we'll use shampoo that maximizes the energy production of our hair?
Well, I hardly use the cd-rom drive these days. The flash drive gets used more often, but still, most of the time, its just the hard disk & the net.
Unfortunately, Theora will stay irrelevant where it matters most. In sites like Youtube, h264 will prevail. And this time, h264 is the (much) better tech as well.
To get the same quality as h264 video, Theora video needs higher bit rates, which translates to higher traffic, and in the end costs more money. The much higher popularity of h264 compared to Theora doesn't help, either.
but is no problem at link time
Correction: it is a problem if you cannot use shared libraries or the like, which is common with embedded devices that get their firmware flashed on, because you must link everything statically in the firmware. The LGPL then demands that it shall be possible for others to link another version of the library to the firmware, which usually means you have to release the firmware source, or the object files.
The price is compliance with the GPL.
This price is often too high, since it demands that the parts you link the library to become GPL, which in turn often encompasses the entire project.
The way we evolved can be a hint about efficiency. For example, bipedal movement turned out to be pretty efficient on a human scale, while eight legs like a spider are not. Therefore, it is important to know *why* things evolved the way they did. Was it because of energy efficiency? Adaptation to local predators? etc.
the big label records AREN'T there to fuck everyone over. They're just best at making everything that work
No one disputes that. In fact, this is the very problem. Big labels want to make money. No matter what. Enforce DRM, put musicians under draconian contracts, burn out new pop singers, who cares, there are more they can burn out, etc.
One particular example is Britney Spears. If you look up her early singing performances in YouTube, it is hard to believe this is the same girl. She had a great voice back then. But rumors say that she was forced to change her tone in her pop releases. Essentially, she was forced to destroy her voice.
Another example are the contracts forced upon pop casting show candidates. "We own every music you make in the next 36 months", "you must appear at concerts XYZ, on talk shows ABC, you must advertise for company Z ..."
Make no mistake. The shining exterior of the music industry covers the cold, tyrannical, heartless 100% business interior.
Or worse. multi-paradigm programming is akin to messy code.
Not necessarily. D is multi-paradigmatic with a much nicer syntax. C# has a nice functional core, even though it started as an OOP language. Do not let the C++ syntax problems fool you; C++ syntax sucks no matter what you want to do :)
In reality, there are examples where C++ induces 5-10% run-time overhead compared to the same code in FORTRAN 77 when compiling numerically intensive code using classes/templates.
5-10% is a margin where compiler flags and the used compiler are relevant. Also, there is always the possibility that expression templates weren't used properly..
Its not that they don't want to. Often, they could do it with their skills, but other factors stop them from doing so. Like, budget, deadlines.
Of course there is also the fact that people are lazy, and it is just so inconvenient to worry about writing that parser with security in mind, right? "It is not motivating, and I want to see something cool, so lets hack the parser, I will do it properly later" (which never happens) ...
Once you start using generic programming, user-defined operators make sense all of a sudden. Also, if you want to define your own little algebra, you really do not want to verbosely write the expressions. a*(b+c) is preferred over multiply(a,add(b,c)) .
Oh, and moving towards Java would mostly equal devolution. Please choose a better target.
Actually, no. I have seen many problems with legacy Java code that did work properly - in 90% of all cases. And this assumes you don't jump from, say, the SE to the ME.
No, because there is nothing that can replace it. Look at the range it covers. Give me a language that can replace this, and I'm truly happy, because C++ is not a shining beacon of light, C++ is a necessary evil until something can truly replace it.
Oh, and mind the amount of C++ code out there I'd need to interface with. D is the closest thing out there, but it still falls short (well, perhaps until D 2.0 comes out).
Include files are used as some sort of interface 99% of the time. Count the amount of include files without include guards. This means that include files are used in one limited way almost always. If headers are used like module interfaces, then it would be better to support modules in the first place.
Plus, you have to manually take care that stuff isn't defined multiple times (which can happen even with include guards), templates have to be re-evaluated all the time, headers included in include files propagate and can affect compile time as well....
As for why they are still around: backwards compatibility...
A GC is a useful feature though, because it frees us from having to distinguish between heap and stack, and more importantly it frees us from having to deal with the lifespan of a variable directly being related to the stack. The way programs are written nowadays often does not work well with stack lifespans. Yes, if done properly, this is a non-issue in 90% of the time (because of shared_ptr for dynamic stuff), however there are cases where a GC would have been great.
If you want to take out templates and multiple inheritance, you do not understand what templates are actually used for nowadays. Please look up: generic programming, template metaprogramming, modern C++ (no, 1995 style C++ is not modern) and then come back. Generic programming alone is so powerful it becomes obvious why C++ is headed in this direction. And no, neither C# nor Java support GP (their generics are far too primitive).
This comes from someone who uses C++ for a living. Note that C++ is full of problems. You identified none of them though, and none of your statements are correct.
Most of C++'s superior performance comes back once you start using metaprogramming. Note, modern C++ does not outperform Java because of low-level bit fiddling, it outperforms Java because of its ability to do work at compile-time. Once one starts to do this, it becomes apparent just how many class hierarchies actually never require run-time polymorphism (and only polymorphism at compile-time). As a result, the actual class hierarchies are dramatically reduced, because most classes in Java are just poor man's concepts (as in C++ concepts) or poor man's Haskell typeclasses.
Also, C++ is multi-paradigmatic, and does not try to shoehorn everything into the OOP paradigm, which means the code can fit the problem better. For instance, I lost count of how often I use boost.lambda, or boost.phoenix, or bind, which all are sort of implementations of lambda.
Then there are expression templates, which allows you to do things like matrix multiplications which even outperform Fortran.
C++ is being used in areas where speed matters. WITH templates. In fact, expression templates are one of the primary tools for writing fast code in C++ without having to go to a low semantic level, like in C. Using expression templates, I can write the actual expression, and the templates will unroll to form the optimized code. Yes, this is used in practice. Google for Blitz++ for an example.
"Can" does not imply "must".
So? C++ code from 1996 still runs fine as well. Haskell code from 1996 still runs fine as well. etc..
What exactly is your point?
Are you saying that C++0x is unnecessary?
If so, then you haven't stumbled upon C++'s many problems. Like, lack of rvalue references. Or, lack of a proper lambda.
Note though that concepts can sort of be emulated in a limited way by using static asserts. Also, variadic templates are introduced, which significantly reduce compile time and size of error messages (because for example boost.bind does not need 10 overloads to support 1 argument, or 2, or 3 ...). So things are not all that bad.
Yeah, but it is reasonable. Concepts are a complex feature, and C++ is an (overly) complex language. Do you really want to hold back all the other very important features like lambda, rvalue references, variadic templates, type deduction etc. just because of concepts?
Or a crowbar for anybody who thinks languages make things automatically safe.
If you are a good programmer, you can do safe programs in C++ or any other language.
If you are a bad programmer, you can't do that in C++ or any other language.
At which point things swing back to normal - but only after a very bloody revolt.