I would actually assume they fall into the bicycle category.
Why? A vehicle that you have to pedal with your limbs to make it move should fall into the bicycle category. What other point would the bicycle category have?
UNWIND-PROTECT is very useful, but it is lexically scoped. Objects that need any protection require two entries, one at the allocation/initialization and one in the protection clause. This can be a source of errors (missing protection for a resource allocation) and a major pain with some macro environments.
Could you elaborate on that? Perhaps with some more specific example.
Stack-allocated objects run their destructors on scope exit, much like an implicit, low-cost unwind-protect.
I'm not quite sure that unwind-protect is high cost, at least comparatively to your destructors. Aren't the principles of implementation the same? You need to cover both regular and exceptional exits in both languages, so I'm not sure there's a completely free lunch for C++ there.
The destructor is a convenient place to update unwind semantics at all call sites
Why would I sign up for a Lisp class? The Gigamonkeys book should be enough for everyone. Well, perhaps with On Lisp and the recent public release of PAIP.
and a community that's too academic to care about the needs of real-world programmers
I think you meant Scheme. Common Lisp is industrial, non academic. Anyway, for C++ lovers, the benefits of CL is that it is in places as dirty and ugly as C++.;)
Another ridiculous argument since by the time BWK wrote that book, Wirthian languages had already hit Modula-2 and were well on their way to Modula-3 and Oberon. That's like arguing that you shouldn't use Fortran by pointing out the deficiencies of Fortran 77.
I think that's a very flawed argument. You have no control group in the form of another universe where C++ didn't gain the same popularity and the same programs were developed in an alternative language. Only then could you assess whether C++ helped you write those programs or whether it hindered you. Just because network effects, for better or worse, made most people use it in our world says little of its technical merits.
All the garbage collected languages handle RAM OK but RAM is only one type of resource. You end up explicitly closing files, etc., when you finish with them.
Then why don't you make people program in Common Lisp? Not only do you get even higher expressiveness and power but you still get to keep undereducated people out.
The interesting statistics is the ratio of cold and hot records. If the trend in your noisy data is absent, you'd expect cold and hot records to be set at roughtly 1:1, regardless of your history of measurements. In reality, it currently looks like this.
I keep wondering in what idiotic world does last mile connection constitute "interstate commerce". But apparently in the heads of some officials it does.
Slashdot Mirror
With time-of-day pricing, this might easily be a thing in the future.
I would actually assume they fall into the bicycle category.
Why? A vehicle that you have to pedal with your limbs to make it move should fall into the bicycle category. What other point would the bicycle category have?
Its code that's almost not understandable by anyone other than the original author.
With the corollary that the same person a year later is not "the original author" either?
The macro doesn't know it, the special operator does.
IG Nobel prize candidate?
UNWIND-PROTECT is very useful, but it is lexically scoped. Objects that need any protection require two entries, one at the allocation/initialization and one in the protection clause. This can be a source of errors (missing protection for a resource allocation) and a major pain with some macro environments.
Could you elaborate on that? Perhaps with some more specific example.
Stack-allocated objects run their destructors on scope exit, much like an implicit, low-cost unwind-protect.
I'm not quite sure that unwind-protect is high cost, at least comparatively to your destructors. Aren't the principles of implementation the same? You need to cover both regular and exceptional exits in both languages, so I'm not sure there's a completely free lunch for C++ there.
The destructor is a convenient place to update unwind semantics at all call sites
So is a macro definition, though.
Why would I sign up for a Lisp class? The Gigamonkeys book should be enough for everyone. Well, perhaps with On Lisp and the recent public release of PAIP.
and a community that's too academic to care about the needs of real-world programmers
I think you meant Scheme. Common Lisp is industrial, non academic. Anyway, for C++ lovers, the benefits of CL is that it is in places as dirty and ugly as C++. ;)
Another ridiculous argument since by the time BWK wrote that book, Wirthian languages had already hit Modula-2 and were well on their way to Modula-3 and Oberon. That's like arguing that you shouldn't use Fortran by pointing out the deficiencies of Fortran 77.
I think that's a very flawed argument. You have no control group in the form of another universe where C++ didn't gain the same popularity and the same programs were developed in an alternative language. Only then could you assess whether C++ helped you write those programs or whether it hindered you. Just because network effects, for better or worse, made most people use it in our world says little of its technical merits.
All the garbage collected languages handle RAM OK but RAM is only one type of resource. You end up explicitly closing files, etc., when you finish with them.
...say people who never heard of unwind-protect.
Then why don't you make people program in Common Lisp? Not only do you get even higher expressiveness and power but you still get to keep undereducated people out.
The interesting statistics is the ratio of cold and hot records. If the trend in your noisy data is absent, you'd expect cold and hot records to be set at roughtly 1:1, regardless of your history of measurements. In reality, it currently looks like this.
It probably shouldn't have been hauling it anyway. Aside from the humongous volume of water inside Ceres, Jovians moons are even closer.
Fresh water is what you get when you distill the brine...
"Ceres: having more water than Earth since at least 2005"
...equals more Cold Calls.
Are you suggesting we might get common cold calls?
I keep wondering in what idiotic world does last mile connection constitute "interstate commerce". But apparently in the heads of some officials it does.
And by "doctors", you mean "alien expats with a narcissistic moniker they gave to themselves"? I'm sure they can.
But electrocuting peoples' brains would without a doubt prevent crime, wouldn't it?
You don't need a river in general, but to cool an AP1000 unit in space, you'd need a radiator roughly 2.5 km in diameter.
Yes, to the extent that you might need a high temperature reactor. Those are no fun to build.
Lovely how they use the ridiculous American prices of solar installations. Sucks to be a solar-loving American, I guess.
An AP1000 will be as useless to you in deep space as a solar panel.
Probably good for solar power, though.