I struggle to find a decent use of them and often see them used where the implementation limits future maintenance. I know in C++ templateing was a huge? feature, which generics seem similar to. I don't do any of C++ work so maybe I'm just missing the point but I struggle to see much value in it. At least in the work that I do.
In C++, I can write a templated function/method/class that implements the same algorithm for different types, and at compile time, yet. The biggest advantage of C++'s standard library is the header, not the container classes
The Qt page has members, methods, properties and general description on one nicely formatted page, along with derived and parent classes. Also, functions are organized into groups and the entry for each function has "see also" links to other similar functions.
The MSDN page on the other hand, has no ref links for easy navigation or linking, a useless set of declarations for that class in various languages, no explanation of the components of the class being described, and no members list (you have to go to another page for that). The members list in itself is equally bad: it's just a long list of members, with no grouping or indeed, any ordering beyond breaking it up into properties/methods/events.
Honestly, when working on Windows, I wish I had something like man pages!
It's technology. We're trying to improve things not score points for originality. If a language has good features then copy them. C# added useful stuff like operator overloading and named arguments and lambdas. Plus a whole slew of other features that are actually pretty useful.
Honestly, some of those additions in C# feel like they were tacked on because people were complaining about not having them in the language (me included).
Not that C++0x (or whatever it's going to be) is any better; this looks like brainfuck more than anything else I know of: "[](int x, int y) -> int { int z = x + y; return z + x; }"
And as far as "flooding the market" goes, MS had already flooded the market with MFC and Win32..Net is way better tan either of them.
Ain't that the truth! For all its faults, I'd rather work with.Net than with Win32...
No, I'm not suggesting that we have a "free" market. I'm not suggesting that what we have is in any way free.
Your other point is strange: Could you substantiate how regulation keeps the 5% of landowners in power? In some countries, for example in India, there's a land ceiling that ensures that a single person cannot own more than X acres (of agricultural land, anyway). Now, how's that regulation keeping the landlord in power?
Except when there are only one or two coal mine operators in the empire, and they all collude to make sure that working conditions are identical. Explain why/how that's different and better than the government regulating them again?
other countries don't develop their own techniques which are equal to / better (or even worse, but more patriotic) than American ones.
All in all, imaginary property controls are only real as long as they're accepted by everyone. See China's methods of blatantly copying everyone else's IP by not granting a patent, and then exploiting the technique that was applied for patenting. And while not remotely near as heinous, India has a system by which "life saving drugs" must be licensed to other companies, at a "reasonable price", that the court fixes (the reasoning is very simple: life saving drugs should always be available at reasonable rates to everyone).
And just how are those property "rights" to be created? Who should own the wild plants? Who should own the bees that pollinate them? And who should own the air that blew pollen from one plant to another?
I'm not (exactly) going down the Marxist route of "All property is theft", but the ideals of libertarianism are just that: ideals, that live in a lofty perch atop a tower built of copies of Atlas Shrugged and Cato Institute research papers. Actually implementing them in real life would lead to incredible disasters!
You're absolutely right, and let me add to your point. A "free" market is one where every supplier (and consumer) can compete equally. Which means that there has to be some mechanism for stopping one player from becoming more equal than the others, which in turn means a large legal structure to protect the market from being overrun by strong-arm tactics and uncompetitive acts by those players who become (much) larger than the rest.
If regulation didn't exist, the market would devolve into a few monopolists running things, which would in no way be "free". Get over it: free market requires regulation
*ahem* The Nano would be a Tata product, and Tata is a private company. It's like blaming Obama for the iPhone's antenna...
And the point of the $35 device is not making money. It's a given that it'll lose money, since it's subsidized. The idea is to use it for education, and the government is willing to spend on that.
Now, whether it'll actually be useful or not is a different question entirely.
That's end-to-end encryption. Encryption on the radio is still allowed, and probably regularly used. They tap into the signal at the operator's switchboard, not over ether.
And just how did you make that wonderful logical leap? Advocating changes to reduce our contribution to climate change is now the same as saying that only humans contribute to climate change now?
Slashdot Mirror
And Facebook's apparently in PHP and MySQL, and Slashcode is perl
Honestly, the only expression that comes to mind when I read that is unprintable.
This is much better
import sys, re
matcher = re.compile(sys.argv[1])
for line in sys.stdin:
Yeah yeah... I know that ostriches don't really bury their heads in the sand, and that lemmings don't really commit suicide by jumping over a cliff.
Way to miss the content and beat the crap out of the form.
I struggle to find a decent use of them and often see them used where the implementation limits future maintenance. I know in C++ templateing was a huge? feature, which generics seem similar to. I don't do any of C++ work so maybe I'm just missing the point but I struggle to see much value in it. At least in the work that I do.
In C++, I can write a templated function/method/class that implements the same algorithm for different types, and at compile time, yet. The biggest advantage of C++'s standard library is the header, not the container classes
...And documentation where trying to figure out the class hierarchy of OO libraries is an exercise in frustration. Compare these two: Typical MSDN page (scroll down to Inheritance) and a typical Qt documentation page.
The Qt page has members, methods, properties and general description on one nicely formatted page, along with derived and parent classes. Also, functions are organized into groups and the entry for each function has "see also" links to other similar functions.
The MSDN page on the other hand, has no ref links for easy navigation or linking, a useless set of declarations for that class in various languages, no explanation of the components of the class being described, and no members list (you have to go to another page for that). The members list in itself is equally bad: it's just a long list of members, with no grouping or indeed, any ordering beyond breaking it up into properties/methods/events.
Honestly, when working on Windows, I wish I had something like man pages!
It's technology. We're trying to improve things not score points for originality. If a language has good features then copy them. C# added useful stuff like operator overloading and named arguments and lambdas. Plus a whole slew of other features that are actually pretty useful.
Honestly, some of those additions in C# feel like they were tacked on because people were complaining about not having them in the language (me included).
Not that C++0x (or whatever it's going to be) is any better; this looks like brainfuck more than anything else I know of: "[](int x, int y) -> int { int z = x + y; return z + x; }"
And as far as "flooding the market" goes, MS had already flooded the market with MFC and Win32. .Net is way better tan either of them.
Ain't that the truth! For all its faults, I'd rather work with .Net than with Win32...
The sane parts of the world would probably just ignore imaginary patents and go on with life... ;-)
Somebody is also very unclear in their explanation, and I think that's you...
What, exactly, do you think is wrong with the concept, again?
...said the ostritch as it burrowed its head into the sand...
No, I'm not suggesting that we have a "free" market. I'm not suggesting that what we have is in any way free.
Your other point is strange: Could you substantiate how regulation keeps the 5% of landowners in power? In some countries, for example in India, there's a land ceiling that ensures that a single person cannot own more than X acres (of agricultural land, anyway). Now, how's that regulation keeping the landlord in power?
Except when there are only one or two coal mine operators in the empire, and they all collude to make sure that working conditions are identical. Explain why/how that's different and better than the government regulating them again?
Works only as long as:
All in all, imaginary property controls are only real as long as they're accepted by everyone. See China's methods of blatantly copying everyone else's IP by not granting a patent, and then exploiting the technique that was applied for patenting. And while not remotely near as heinous, India has a system by which "life saving drugs" must be licensed to other companies, at a "reasonable price", that the court fixes (the reasoning is very simple: life saving drugs should always be available at reasonable rates to everyone).
And just how are those property "rights" to be created? Who should own the wild plants? Who should own the bees that pollinate them? And who should own the air that blew pollen from one plant to another?
I'm not (exactly) going down the Marxist route of "All property is theft", but the ideals of libertarianism are just that: ideals, that live in a lofty perch atop a tower built of copies of Atlas Shrugged and Cato Institute research papers. Actually implementing them in real life would lead to incredible disasters!
And this was marked "troll"?
You're absolutely right, and let me add to your point. A "free" market is one where every supplier (and consumer) can compete equally. Which means that there has to be some mechanism for stopping one player from becoming more equal than the others, which in turn means a large legal structure to protect the market from being overrun by strong-arm tactics and uncompetitive acts by those players who become (much) larger than the rest.
If regulation didn't exist, the market would devolve into a few monopolists running things, which would in no way be "free". Get over it: free market requires regulation
They'll comment after they've finished one more turn...
*ahem* The Nano would be a Tata product, and Tata is a private company. It's like blaming Obama for the iPhone's antenna...
And the point of the $35 device is not making money. It's a given that it'll lose money, since it's subsidized. The idea is to use it for education, and the government is willing to spend on that.
Now, whether it'll actually be useful or not is a different question entirely.
That's end-to-end encryption. Encryption on the radio is still allowed, and probably regularly used. They tap into the signal at the operator's switchboard, not over ether.
Take a look at GP's sig: 101 Reasons why Java is better than .NET
Of course, a large number of those are quite dated, but that's where he's coming from...
FTR, I don't agree with most of that: just an attempt to be fair
Yeah, this is slashdot and all, but it wouldn't kill you to RTFA
Must make you a very interesting guy to be around...
They're compiling ships from source now?
Fascinating!
At high pressures, O2 is poisonous. Wikipedia has the details...
C++ can be faster than C... This is an old one, which proves the point...
Remember, C++ is not just OO - that's one of the paradigms it supports, but not the only one.
And just how did you make that wonderful logical leap? Advocating changes to reduce our contribution to climate change is now the same as saying that only humans contribute to climate change now?
No, the science wasn't. Allegations of misconduct were. What's so bloody difficult to understand about that?