Buddy, you've read a grand total of nine sentences of mine. Don't pretend you know me well enough to make the claims you did. Yeah, I'll look into some of that when I get the chance, but man, get over yourself.
Do you intend to come across as a pompous ass? Making assumptions about what thoughts another person has entertained is a foolish business. Your attitude overshadows the points you make.
This is exactly like the questions I see submitted to answer columns: the answer is obvious, and it makes me wonder why the submitter can't see it himself. Learn restraint and how to manage your time. If you describe yourself as "addicted," then you're likely putting in more time than even you'd like to.
But those answers are obvious, and frankly, you should have realized them. So my question is, why didn't you?
No. I don't want to live in a society where economics determine your importance to the law. Yes, I realize that already happens to a certain extent; the rich have access to better lawyers, and through lobbyists, can influence what does become law. But that's not written into our law.
I think that using economic terms to make a sliding scale for a person's accountability to the law is wrong. I don't understand why anyone would want to do it, either.
What about people who exercise on a regular basis? Not full time athletes, but people who work out regularly and are in good shape. I lift and run, and I think I need a steady supply of carbohydrates. My perception has been that Atkins doesn't work for people who work out regularly, and really, everyone should work out regularly. It's like saying "Well, you're not going to work out anyway, so here's a way to lose weight that doesn't involve getting in shape."
With that said, I have heard of bodybuilders using atkins for relatively short periods to lose non-muscle weight fast, because the rate of lean muscle loss is slowed while on atkins, and your body burns fat as it has nothing else to burn.
I lift with a friend who knows a bit about bodybuilding techniques, and he's told me basically that. It doesn't strike me as particularly healthy.
You can gain significant muscle tone in a few months, but it takes a long time and a concerted effort to gain significant muscle mass. (By significant I mean 5 - 10 pounds of muscle.)
But regardless of if you loose weight or not, any activity causing your pulse to rise will make you more fit. Which is a good thing.
False. Taking certain drugs can get your heart racing, but they don't do anything for the rest of your cardiovascular system.
If you want to be healty (not just lose weight), exercise is key. And exercise is tied to weight loss because when you don't exercise, your metabolism goes down; your body requires less calories, which means you're going to retain more. You also lose muscle tone and cardiovascular endurance. Also, added muscle increases your metabolism.
If you want to lose weight and actually be fit for the rest of your life, you need to exercise. There's no way around it.
For me, the difference is that in one, no copying takes place and the function modifies the original object, and in the other, a copy ocurrs, and the function modifies a local copy. Whether or not a copy takes place is the most important distinction to me. I've run into problems with thinking of passing a pointer around as pass by reference, so I call that pass by value, it just so happens that the copied value is an address.
As I know it, my usage is the generic comptuer science/language theory sense, but that's just how I was taught.
It has been implied by your statements; I don't know what else to think when you argue my point that concrete examples help us to internalize information.
I define pass by reference to be exactly what pass by reference is in C++. When something is passed by reference, no copy takes place; the called function operates on the same object, not a local copy.
This is different than a function operating on a copied pointer that happens to point to the same object. In that case, a copy takes place; the function is operating on its own local copy of the pointer.
The only semantic difference that I am aware of is what I pointed out earlier: you can't change what the reference refers to. At this point, the discussion has become a matter of definition. As long as we all understand what's going on, I don't care much what it's called. However, your original claim (if I understand it correctly) said there is no difference between passing by reference in C++, and passing pointers in C. As I demonstrated, there is.
Understanding a proof is the last step in understanding a thereom, not the first. I did not say proofs are unnecessary. You, however, have said that concrete examples are unnecessary, which I think is silly.
I find I don't understand a proof until I've already internalized the thereom. Concrete examples aid in this.
That, however, is not the same as passing a reference in C++, even though you get the same desired result in this case. The semantics are the same in your example, but not in general.
So it is not accurate to say "You get pass by reference semantics by passing or returning pointers." Pass by reference allows you to change what is referred to, not just the referred data. Passing pointers around is not a semantic equivalent to pass by reference.
Slashdot Mirror
Buddy, you've read a grand total of nine sentences of mine. Don't pretend you know me well enough to make the claims you did. Yeah, I'll look into some of that when I get the chance, but man, get over yourself.
Do you intend to come across as a pompous ass? Making assumptions about what thoughts another person has entertained is a foolish business. Your attitude overshadows the points you make.
Point me to something. By your rationale, the set of all real numbers is not a "mathematical object" which is nonsense to me.
Now that doesn't make any sense. What is and is not a "mathematical object"? Take some discrete math.
So the set of all real numbers betwen zero and one does not exist?
D'oh. Make that Simultaneous.
It's actually Symmetric Multithreading. HyperThreading is Intel's marketing term.
That's exactly what my undergrad compiler class was like, except we were allowed to use C++. Great course.
I do plenty of programming, and I never have to use the caps lock key. I reserve all caps words for #defines, which I don't use much.
This is exactly like the questions I see submitted to answer columns: the answer is obvious, and it makes me wonder why the submitter can't see it himself. Learn restraint and how to manage your time. If you describe yourself as "addicted," then you're likely putting in more time than even you'd like to.
But those answers are obvious, and frankly, you should have realized them. So my question is, why didn't you?
That was basically my take on Richard Gabriel's "Worse is Better" paper from 20 years ago.
Should this be weighed when making laws?
No. I don't want to live in a society where economics determine your importance to the law. Yes, I realize that already happens to a certain extent; the rich have access to better lawyers, and through lobbyists, can influence what does become law. But that's not written into our law.
I think that using economic terms to make a sliding scale for a person's accountability to the law is wrong. I don't understand why anyone would want to do it, either.
What about people who exercise on a regular basis? Not full time athletes, but people who work out regularly and are in good shape. I lift and run, and I think I need a steady supply of carbohydrates. My perception has been that Atkins doesn't work for people who work out regularly, and really, everyone should work out regularly. It's like saying "Well, you're not going to work out anyway, so here's a way to lose weight that doesn't involve getting in shape."
With that said, I have heard of bodybuilders using atkins for relatively short periods to lose non-muscle weight fast, because the rate of lean muscle loss is slowed while on atkins, and your body burns fat as it has nothing else to burn.
I lift with a friend who knows a bit about bodybuilding techniques, and he's told me basically that. It doesn't strike me as particularly healthy.
Are you aware of any athletes who live on an Atkins diet?
You can gain significant muscle tone in a few months, but it takes a long time and a concerted effort to gain significant muscle mass. (By significant I mean 5 - 10 pounds of muscle.)
But regardless of if you loose weight or not, any activity causing your pulse to rise will make you more fit. Which is a good thing.
False. Taking certain drugs can get your heart racing, but they don't do anything for the rest of your cardiovascular system.
If you want to be healty (not just lose weight), exercise is key. And exercise is tied to weight loss because when you don't exercise, your metabolism goes down; your body requires less calories, which means you're going to retain more. You also lose muscle tone and cardiovascular endurance. Also, added muscle increases your metabolism.
If you want to lose weight and actually be fit for the rest of your life, you need to exercise. There's no way around it.
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
Quantum mechanics got its start in the early 1900s.
And your comment about scientists disproving everything every few years is just too depressing to address in full.
CS programs are there to teach Computer Science, not programming.
Certified by who?
For me, the difference is that in one, no copying takes place and the function modifies the original object, and in the other, a copy ocurrs, and the function modifies a local copy. Whether or not a copy takes place is the most important distinction to me. I've run into problems with thinking of passing a pointer around as pass by reference, so I call that pass by value, it just so happens that the copied value is an address.
As I know it, my usage is the generic comptuer science/language theory sense, but that's just how I was taught.
It has been implied by your statements; I don't know what else to think when you argue my point that concrete examples help us to internalize information.
I define pass by reference to be exactly what pass by reference is in C++. When something is passed by reference, no copy takes place; the called function operates on the same object, not a local copy.
This is different than a function operating on a copied pointer that happens to point to the same object. In that case, a copy takes place; the function is operating on its own local copy of the pointer.
The only semantic difference that I am aware of is what I pointed out earlier: you can't change what the reference refers to. At this point, the discussion has become a matter of definition. As long as we all understand what's going on, I don't care much what it's called. However, your original claim (if I understand it correctly) said there is no difference between passing by reference in C++, and passing pointers in C. As I demonstrated, there is.
Understanding a proof is the last step in understanding a thereom, not the first. I did not say proofs are unnecessary. You, however, have said that concrete examples are unnecessary, which I think is silly.
I find I don't understand a proof until I've already internalized the thereom. Concrete examples aid in this.
That, however, is not the same as passing a reference in C++, even though you get the same desired result in this case. The semantics are the same in your example, but not in general.
So it is not accurate to say "You get pass by reference semantics by passing or returning pointers." Pass by reference allows you to change what is referred to, not just the referred data. Passing pointers around is not a semantic equivalent to pass by reference.