C, by design is as fast as C++ (or vise versa). If you're talking about what they were designed for, as opposed to how they are used, where are you making this particular distinction? What can be coded in C to run faster than in C++?
Your "easy to misuse" link sounds more like fear-mongering than anything practical. Almost every answer is in the context of "oh but it doesn't work as advertised", which is actually complete B.S. Either he's not reading the right documentation, or there's another agenda.
Beyond those fundamental limitations, templates follow the tradition of C++ features of interacting poorly with each other. Templates can't be compiled because they are not code - they are, well, templates from which code can be generated once you have the parameters, and then you can compile it. C++, like C, defines no way to locate the compiled code of a definition given its name. Consequently, template definitions are placed in #include files, and recompiled in each translation unit each time they are instantiated, even if the exact same instantiation is used in N other files.
Really? Again, what a load of bullshit! Template code works PERFECTLY with all other code! Why? Because instantiated code is just regular C++ code. To top this off C++ has something called "One Definition Rule", which means you cannot have the same thing defined twice, whether it's a regular class or a second template instantiation with the same parameters. They HAVE to be merged in order to be valid C++.
After reading some of these.. I simply stopped. This is just someone with an axe to grid and is harmful to actual information.
I would argue that when an "intelligent" person that is "dangerously ignorant" is not an intelligent person.
In my short life thus far, I've found that the intelligent amongst us will readily admit their own shortcomings. I will not claim "intelligence" but will tell you quite sincerely that I hunt for my shortcomings mercilessly. That is because I hate being wrong in the literal sense. I would rather learn something new than have my convictions, so I hope that it is at least evident that I'm not talking about arrogance. Time and time again, on this forum, I've stfu simply because someone had enough insight to show me the error that I was making, and I could not be more thankful.
A 'language' cannot introduce bugs. An implementation of said language can. As such, you must be smart about your choice of the implementation and the subtle bugs it can introduce.
But this is a system's language which is meant for precisely allowing this type of programming from within the language (and avoiding platform specific assembler code while performing the operations themselves using slightly higher level expressions). I'm not sure if the benefits of what you say outweigh the downsides considering their original intended purpose.
Re:Time to change your OS to OSX or BSD
on
Time To Dump XP?
·
· Score: 1
The need for an A/V is not a good example of necessary infrastructure for the MAC...
Pointers, and by extension pointer arithmetic operations in C (and C++) are 1 to 1 mappings to some very common assembly instructions. That is, it's merely a way to use expressions for the type of code that deals with addressing raw memory. If you've found that you're using a lot of code that does pointer arithmetic but can't figure out why, well then you're doing it wrong (tm). This type of code belongs safely tucked away in a well tested library routine. However, to suggest that you should never ever be able to write code that performs these operations literally means you will sell yourself short in the long run when you come across a problem that *requires* that type of bit fiddling. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
The people choosing their compiler version based on the language its written on are doing it wrong. It's not the language in which it is written, it is the quality of the written piece that matters!
For the same reason that we humans are interested in studying ants. Now these creatures form macro organisms, of which in the mammalian world there's only one: us. Just because most of us have a superiority complex that leads us to completely ignore them, doesn't mean there isn't a nerd somewhere out there studying every little detail of the creatures.
Thanks for that, I guess, but no. I'm replying to his further claims down the road... to things like "Heck statistically and mathematically it's even impossible here on earth". Even if the point is about abundance, then we're still (from our point of view) are stuck with the infinity of possibility within our universe, and we, as the human species have 0 (zero!) authority to say that "mathematically and statistically" it's impossible. Part of the reasoning is that, as much as we know math, we don't really know math. Steven Hawkins himself has MUCH to learn still (and I'm not even claiming to be anywhere near his ability, in fact, many here surpass me quite considerably). Ultimately his point was so poorly framed that we ended up bickering about language semantics rather than what he was trying to say. What he was trying to say was the absolute obvious.
Ok well, I guess basing my response on the argument made is a fallacy. Who would have thought that when the poster said "statistically impossible" he actually meant something different and had a different context that I'm only left to guess as to what he "really" meant.
Or I could respond to what I'm actually reading and call him out on his incomprehensible gibberish of an argument.
As it stands, any % or infinity is infinity, therefore using statistics in an argument about life in the universe is not helpful to the discussion, or anyone's understanding. I thought I was just pointing out the obvious.
Except that you're swinging and missing too. I'm not shooting the messenger. I'm shooting the message. I am specifically against the notion that it's possible to have a good secure system without putting in the time and effort that it takes to get your system to that state. The post I'm replying to makes it sound like that is the case for everything, and if you're not putting that type of effort into everything, then you're just 'lazy'. That's not true in all cases. It's true for some, like computer systems. Further more, I'm simply supporting your initial point and saying the AC missed the point of your post by going off on an unrelated (yet seemingly similar) tangent.
It was put back in the late 90's after an elaborate experiment where they had used one of the 1970's revision editors and his wife as the subjects. The discovered that he indeed was doing it wrong.
Statistically, the probability of life in the universe is exactly 100%. I leave it to you to figure out why that is the case (hint: we are talking to each other). To say that it's "mathematically impossible" displays a lack of understanding of the term itself. Perhaps your conviction in the matter is a bit misplaced?
Again, that is not the context of my statement. At all. I have expressed what *I* would think to myself when someone else tries to tell me what to think. In the two sentences preceding what you quoted I said that I am not asking anyone to do anything. So in essence you're just criticizing my opinion on a subject while agreeing to the same opinion: "Censorship is ridiculous".
Slashdot Mirror
C, by design is as fast as C++ (or vise versa). If you're talking about what they were designed for, as opposed to how they are used, where are you making this particular distinction? What can be coded in C to run faster than in C++?
Beyond those fundamental limitations, templates follow the tradition of C++ features of interacting poorly with each other. Templates can't be compiled because they are not code - they are, well, templates from which code can be generated once you have the parameters, and then you can compile it. C++, like C, defines no way to locate the compiled code of a definition given its name. Consequently, template definitions are placed in #include files, and recompiled in each translation unit each time they are instantiated, even if the exact same instantiation is used in N other files.
Really? Again, what a load of bullshit! Template code works PERFECTLY with all other code! Why? Because instantiated code is just regular C++ code. To top this off C++ has something called "One Definition Rule", which means you cannot have the same thing defined twice, whether it's a regular class or a second template instantiation with the same parameters. They HAVE to be merged in order to be valid C++.
After reading some of these.. I simply stopped. This is just someone with an axe to grid and is harmful to actual information.
Which pretty much means that it won't happen. Given enough pressure, like all bubbles, this one will burst too.
Sorry, I was OT... I was referring to the size of the ass only.
As far as asses go, I do believe you have us beat.
And painful
OT, but...
I would argue that when an "intelligent" person that is "dangerously ignorant" is not an intelligent person.
In my short life thus far, I've found that the intelligent amongst us will readily admit their own shortcomings. I will not claim "intelligence" but will tell you quite sincerely that I hunt for my shortcomings mercilessly. That is because I hate being wrong in the literal sense. I would rather learn something new than have my convictions, so I hope that it is at least evident that I'm not talking about arrogance. Time and time again, on this forum, I've stfu simply because someone had enough insight to show me the error that I was making, and I could not be more thankful.
Again, OT, but... in retrospect, thank you all.
Thank god that function names are not case sensitive... Or is this not PHP??? Shit!
A 'language' cannot introduce bugs. An implementation of said language can. As such, you must be smart about your choice of the implementation and the subtle bugs it can introduce.
But this is a system's language which is meant for precisely allowing this type of programming from within the language (and avoiding platform specific assembler code while performing the operations themselves using slightly higher level expressions). I'm not sure if the benefits of what you say outweigh the downsides considering their original intended purpose.
The need for an A/V is not a good example of necessary infrastructure for the MAC...
Pointers, and by extension pointer arithmetic operations in C (and C++) are 1 to 1 mappings to some very common assembly instructions. That is, it's merely a way to use expressions for the type of code that deals with addressing raw memory. If you've found that you're using a lot of code that does pointer arithmetic but can't figure out why, well then you're doing it wrong (tm). This type of code belongs safely tucked away in a well tested library routine. However, to suggest that you should never ever be able to write code that performs these operations literally means you will sell yourself short in the long run when you come across a problem that *requires* that type of bit fiddling. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
The people choosing their compiler version based on the language its written on are doing it wrong. It's not the language in which it is written, it is the quality of the written piece that matters!
The effort in utilizing the tools available to you isn't free.
That would require critical thinking. You do see a problem here don't you?
For the same reason that we humans are interested in studying ants. Now these creatures form macro organisms, of which in the mammalian world there's only one: us. Just because most of us have a superiority complex that leads us to completely ignore them, doesn't mean there isn't a nerd somewhere out there studying every little detail of the creatures.
Also, we do not know whether there are an infinite number of equivalent universes. That may be the case, however, we cannot assume that it is.
Thanks for that, I guess, but no. I'm replying to his further claims down the road... to things like "Heck statistically and mathematically it's even impossible here on earth". Even if the point is about abundance, then we're still (from our point of view) are stuck with the infinity of possibility within our universe, and we, as the human species have 0 (zero!) authority to say that "mathematically and statistically" it's impossible. Part of the reasoning is that, as much as we know math, we don't really know math. Steven Hawkins himself has MUCH to learn still (and I'm not even claiming to be anywhere near his ability, in fact, many here surpass me quite considerably). Ultimately his point was so poorly framed that we ended up bickering about language semantics rather than what he was trying to say. What he was trying to say was the absolute obvious.
Or I could respond to what I'm actually reading and call him out on his incomprehensible gibberish of an argument.
As it stands, any % or infinity is infinity, therefore using statistics in an argument about life in the universe is not helpful to the discussion, or anyone's understanding. I thought I was just pointing out the obvious.
Except that you're swinging and missing too. I'm not shooting the messenger. I'm shooting the message. I am specifically against the notion that it's possible to have a good secure system without putting in the time and effort that it takes to get your system to that state. The post I'm replying to makes it sound like that is the case for everything, and if you're not putting that type of effort into everything, then you're just 'lazy'. That's not true in all cases. It's true for some, like computer systems. Further more, I'm simply supporting your initial point and saying the AC missed the point of your post by going off on an unrelated (yet seemingly similar) tangent.
That's only because you can't haggle.
Swing and a miss. That's not the point at all.
It was put back in the late 90's after an elaborate experiment where they had used one of the 1970's revision editors and his wife as the subjects. The discovered that he indeed was doing it wrong.
Statistically, the probability of life in the universe is exactly 100%. I leave it to you to figure out why that is the case (hint: we are talking to each other). To say that it's "mathematically impossible" displays a lack of understanding of the term itself. Perhaps your conviction in the matter is a bit misplaced?
Again, that is not the context of my statement. At all. I have expressed what *I* would think to myself when someone else tries to tell me what to think. In the two sentences preceding what you quoted I said that I am not asking anyone to do anything. So in essence you're just criticizing my opinion on a subject while agreeing to the same opinion: "Censorship is ridiculous".