Pilots like this are useless. They have no predictive power because an actual universal basic income is qualitatively different from an "income you and a few of your neighbors will get for less than a handful of years and then it goes away." You are mistaken. One measure point is: how much money does the administration safe, buy not checking and observing regulations, but simply handing out the money. The next interesting thing is to see what the receivers of the money are actually doing. Getting a part time job, trying education they can pay themselves instead of useless forced education by the administration etc. p.p. Moving house, not moving house, being more healthy or spending more on booze... You surely can find dozens of interesting numbers to count.
I don't know what I'm doing or how to build big systems, so only small fly-by-night operations staffed by ex-baristas hire me
But it is more funny than insulting, so perhaps I take the idiot back and search for a term that is a synonym for "asshole" because talking like this is pretty assholy behaviour.
If you where my coworker in a proffesional environment you had now problems;D
You know, pretty much the same way the entire FOSS ecosystem works, they way Github projects work, etc. On a GitHub project, assuming it is an "open one" every commiter could potentially destroy the master. Even intentionally. In professional closed source software usually you usually do not need to fear that. So regardless how big my projects were and what kind of software (outonomous driving e.g.) there never was a "code ownership" policy in place. And like many others (e.g. Fowler) I find idiotic and not fitting for agile software development (and also not fitting for Waterfall etc.)
But who am I that I dare to think such stuff with in total only roughly 35 years experience...
In languages like Java or C# type safety during a downcast is not compile time enforced... however it is still type safe (you get runtime exceptions). It should be avoided of course, but there are situations where you can't. (Have non at hand at the moment, as I wrote my last down cast ages ago and don't remember why it was needed)
Regarding reflection: using reflection is still type safe, so what are you referreing. too?
Wow, how can one pretent to know everything and write wrong post after wrong post, is beyond me.
That plane is a prototype! That implies: it has no license to fly outside of private owned propety. That implies: it can only fly below a certain height, I believe 300m That also implies that it is remote controlled via radio, or in this case I believe: a cable!!
So: it can not fly with full speed as germany is a country where owning big pieces of land is problematic.
There you have it. However much you rant about it, this flying machine remains a close relative of the flying brick. You might think so. But the engineers working on it don't think so. I for my part bet on the engineers and not a random clueless/. poster.
I never ever in the last 30 years worked for a company that hat something different than "collective code ownership"... because as I mentioned before: code ownership is a retarded concept.
I was just wondering. Because I hear this control thing so often and then the programmers make lots of "un true" comments about what is wrong with C++ and why they don't use it.
What do the 36 engines help when the batteries are empty? Would it help to compare empty batterioes with an empty fuel tank in a plane with combustion engines? Would it not be amazing if the plane had an instrument to measure battery load and indicator in the cockpit? Probably an accustic warning, too?
What if the engine controller has a bug? Before the plane gets a license to be flown it is required to have a certain amount of flight hours, just like any other "flying thing". And: we could again ask the same question for a plane having combustion engines...
Anyway, the answer will always be: open the parachute.
Why so many out there seem to be unable to comprehend such a simple idea is something deserving of a study.
Why are there so many people that can not comprehend that writers completely know the correct form of usage but STILL make simple TYPING MISTAKES!! And the damn typing mistake is not red underlined because it is a VALID WORD!
And no: proof reading does not make me see such errors, as I'm a whole word or even "whole sentence" pattern match reader.
(And in this text everything is red underlined because I can not make Windows 10 automatically detect the correct dictionary -- gosh this MS bullshit is so anoying... my 20 year old Mac SE is better in EVERY regard than this windows nightmare)
While you are right "immutable objects aren't necessarily the best fit for data objects", however they often are the simplest approach.
Just think about "rewriting" a single threaded application into a multithreaded one. It helps imensly to have a clear understanding which data is immutal and which is not.
(This is not aimed at you, but your post is a good hook)
There is no bandwagon and there is no hype.
Calling something a bandwagon or hype is a very stupid typical american attitude.
You wake up out of your ignoranced "hu ho, what is that 'new' functional thing, everyone is bandwagoning/hyping around right now??"
And you completely ignore the fact: functional programming is probably close to 50 years old (to lazy to google), there is absolutely nothing new about it. Only the "general education" of software developers is so bad that they think: "Oh you see, (after Groovy had it for decades and Scala since over 15 years,.NET probably also about 10 years) that new lambda stuff in Java 1.8!? Who will ever need/use that? What did the Java standard guys think in adding such complete nonsense to Java? Must be a new hype!"
Functional programming might seem "new" because only a very few people like Lisp (I hate Lisp), and other languages like Miranda, Caml/OCaml, Haskel etc. never really became mainstream.
The STL had/has an apply() function (perhaps called slightly different, e.g. for_each() ) since its inception. Obviously it had no real lambdas, and relied on overwritten "operator()" methods. You called that "functor objects". So boost was by far not the first one offering that.
Trees are a zero sum game. All the CO2 they suck out of the air, they release again when they die and rot. Unless you harvest them and store them somewhere underground.
Population growths has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere now is produced by the 'western industrialized countries' which badically have no population growths at all since the 1970s. CO2 mainly comes from power plants and heating and finally transportation... Most 3rd world countries don't need/have heating, don't have as many goods to transport per capita and don't need as much electricity per capita as e.g. an american. You are an idiot. That you are wrong was a no brainer, for whom do you write bollocks like this?
Full controll about what? So you prefer to be unproductive like 1/3rd of the speed you have when working with C over having a high and easy productivity when working with C++? That is beyond me....
Sorry, your answer makes no sense. It sounds like a C++ hater who has jo idea what he is hating. But don't feel onlieged to give a more sensual answer.
I simply don't get why any sane person would chose C over C++
Especially considering the context, libwt... WTF, how do you want to replace something as fine as that with pure C code? That does not make any sense at all!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not qualified. I rather buy one and make a pilot license.
On the other hand self build planes are quite comon, e.g. the Cri Cri.
Wow you are a smart ass :)
We all know that this test is not a real UBI.
No need to ride that horse to death.
And how is that different to Amazon or the Google Play store?
Pilots like this are useless. They have no predictive power because an actual universal basic income is qualitatively different from an "income you and a few of your neighbors will get for less than a handful of years and then it goes away." ...
You are mistaken.
One measure point is: how much money does the administration safe, buy not checking and observing regulations, but simply handing out the money.
The next interesting thing is to see what the receivers of the money are actually doing. Getting a part time job, trying education they can pay themselves instead of useless forced education by the administration etc. p.p. Moving house, not moving house, being more healthy or spending more on booze
You surely can find dozens of interesting numbers to count.
You indeed seem to be an idiot :D
I don't know what I'm doing or how to build big systems, so only small fly-by-night operations staffed by ex-baristas hire me
But it is more funny than insulting, so perhaps I take the idiot back and search for a term that is a synonym for "asshole" because talking like this is pretty assholy behaviour.
If you where my coworker in a proffesional environment you had now problems ;D
You know, pretty much the same way the entire FOSS ecosystem works, they way Github projects work, etc.
On a GitHub project, assuming it is an "open one" every commiter could potentially destroy the master. Even intentionally.
In professional closed source software usually you usually do not need to fear that.
So regardless how big my projects were and what kind of software (outonomous driving e.g.) there never was a "code ownership" policy in place. And like many others (e.g. Fowler) I find idiotic and not fitting for agile software development (and also not fitting for Waterfall etc.)
But who am I that I dare to think such stuff with in total only roughly 35 years experience ...
In languages like Java or C# type safety during a downcast is not compile time enforced ... however it is still type safe (you get runtime exceptions).
It should be avoided of course, but there are situations where you can't. (Have non at hand at the moment, as I wrote my last down cast ages ago and don't remember why it was needed)
Regarding reflection: using reflection is still type safe, so what are you referreing. too?
And why not? Presumably because it can't.
Wow, how can one pretent to know everything and write wrong post after wrong post, is beyond me.
That plane is a prototype!
That implies: it has no license to fly outside of private owned propety.
That implies: it can only fly below a certain height, I believe 300m
That also implies that it is remote controlled via radio, or in this case I believe: a cable!!
So: it can not fly with full speed as germany is a country where owning big pieces of land is problematic.
There you have it. However much you rant about it, this flying machine remains a close relative of the flying brick. /. poster.
You might think so. But the engineers working on it don't think so.
I for my part bet on the engineers and not a random clueless
And maybe you are just an idiot?
Perhaps you want to read this: https://martinfowler.com/bliki...
I never ever in the last 30 years worked for a company that hat something different than "collective code ownership" ... because as I mentioned before: code ownership is a retarded concept.
I was just wondering. Because I hear this control thing so often and then the programmers make lots of "un true" comments about what is wrong with C++ and why they don't use it.
What do the 36 engines help when the batteries are empty?
Would it help to compare empty batterioes with an empty fuel tank in a plane with combustion engines? Would it not be amazing if the plane had an instrument to measure battery load and indicator in the cockpit? Probably an accustic warning, too?
What if the engine controller has a bug? ...
Before the plane gets a license to be flown it is required to have a certain amount of flight hours, just like any other "flying thing". And: we could again ask the same question for a plane having combustion engines
Anyway, the answer will always be: open the parachute.
Kids in our days ... having no imagination.
Yeah,
in Pascal and Modula 2 we had "case records", don't remember how they were named exactly.
I used a union once or twice, but don't really remember why (I mean: for what purpose).
Why so many out there seem to be unable to comprehend such a simple idea is something deserving of a study.
Why are there so many people that can not comprehend that writers completely know the correct form of usage but STILL make simple TYPING MISTAKES!!
And the damn typing mistake is not red underlined because it is a VALID WORD!
And no: proof reading does not make me see such errors, as I'm a whole word or even "whole sentence" pattern match reader.
(And in this text everything is red underlined because I can not make Windows 10 automatically detect the correct dictionary -- gosh this MS bullshit is so anoying ... my 20 year old Mac SE is better in EVERY regard than this windows nightmare)
While you are right "immutable objects aren't necessarily the best fit for data objects", however they often are the simplest approach.
Just think about "rewriting" a single threaded application into a multithreaded one. It helps imensly to have a clear understanding which data is immutal and which is not.
(This is not aimed at you, but your post is a good hook)
There is no bandwagon and there is no hype.
Calling something a bandwagon or hype is a very stupid typical american attitude.
You wake up out of your ignoranced "hu ho, what is that 'new' functional thing, everyone is bandwagoning/hyping around right now??"
And you completely ignore the fact: functional programming is probably close to 50 years old (to lazy to google), there is absolutely nothing new about it. Only the "general education" of software developers is so bad that they think: "Oh you see, (after Groovy had it for decades and Scala since over 15 years, .NET probably also about 10 years) that new lambda stuff in Java 1.8!? Who will ever need/use that? What did the Java standard guys think in adding such complete nonsense to Java? Must be a new hype!"
Functional programming might seem "new" because only a very few people like Lisp (I hate Lisp), and other languages like Miranda, Caml/OCaml, Haskel etc. never really became mainstream.
You don't know what functional programming is.
That is clear from your comment.
Hence you don't get the question about "like".
Hint: there is wikipedia.
And using "procedures" or "functions" in Pascal or C: that is not functional programming.
The STL had/has an apply() function (perhaps called slightly different, e.g. for_each() ) since its inception.
Obviously it had no real lambdas, and relied on overwritten "operator()" methods. You called that "functor objects".
So boost was by far not the first one offering that.
Any examples for that?
I never had the need to circumwent the type system, and I used plenty of languages, where you simply can't circumvent it.
Are you really that dumb?
When you are using Lambdas in C++: you are doing functional programming. (*facepalm*)
Trees are a zero sum game.
All the CO2 they suck out of the air, they release again when they die and rot.
Unless you harvest them and store them somewhere underground.
Africa is not overpopulated.
Where did you get this idiotic idea from?
And per capita they are probably the ones who produce the least CO2.
Population growths has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. ...
Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere now is produced by the 'western industrialized countries' which badically have no population growths at all since the 1970s.
CO2 mainly comes from power plants and heating and finally transportation
Most 3rd world countries don't need/have heating, don't have as many goods to transport per capita and don't need as much electricity per capita as e.g. an american.
You are an idiot. That you are wrong was a no brainer, for whom do you write bollocks like this?
Compilers don't usually push an extra register on the stack.
Why would they? Erm, why would the compiler writer?
Programming in assembly means you are litteraly 100 times less productive than a C++ programmer.
Deal with it, and get of my lawn ;)
Full controll about what? ....
So you prefer to be unproductive like 1/3rd of the speed you have when working with C over having a high and easy productivity when working with C++? That is beyond me
Sorry, your answer makes no sense. It sounds like a C++ hater who has jo idea what he is hating. But don't feel onlieged to give a more sensual answer.
Most certainly not.
But it would be nice if we had transformation languages foe XML, thatwould not be XLM(XSLT) themself.
Can you explain why?
I simply don't get why any sane person would chose C over C++
Especially considering the context, libwt ... WTF, how do you want to replace something as fine as that with pure C code? That does not make any sense at all!