I do believe that it is impossible for recently designed automatic transmissions to be ripped to pieces by an engine. I've placed my car in drive to park on occasion (accidently) and it still works. The fact that there is no direct connect to the engine, and that the transmission works under hydrostatic pressure insulates it from a similar fate on a manual transmission of say, going from 5th gear to reverse (assuming the lockout broke).
And just about every recent automatic will cut off the engine once it red-lines. My plymouth voyager did, and my Mercury Sable do.
Um yeah, that's where this thing called Inheritance comes into play. If your toolkit is based on a model of Containers/Components, then all new components simply inherit from Component and do their magic differently. MFC manages it. Why a generic library couldn't as well, I cannot fathom.
I also love how sometime around 1.3 they changed the rules so that jarfiles no longer obey CLASSPATH. Yeah, that bit me for the better part of two hours...
Rule #1 of C++: NEVER use auto_ptr. What idiot thought this was a good idea to throw into the language should be dragged out behind the barn and shot. With the entire magazine.
Other than ACE::Ref_Counted_Auto_Ptr and one I rolled my ownsome a LONG time ago which isn't all that great, I'm not sure I know of a GOOD refcounted smart pointer implementation. Got recommendations?
If you replace malloc()/free()/realloc() and new()/delete() how exactly can you get "MORE" correct and optimized with what are already "library" functions?
Methinks you are a troll.
The real problem is that different sharedlibs can indeed be linked to different memory allocators. Nothing in the C++ language will prevent you from called VirtualAlloc on Windows, or sbrk on Unix or whatever the syscall on your platform happens to be.
ImmutableList should throw an "ImmutableListException" when an add() is performed, although indeed, add() should probably be private to help prevent this from ever happening explicitly.
Objects should throw domain appropriate exceptions or return appropriate error codes, as opposed to "virtual function not present exceptions".
Third, it's the easiest way to allow people to distribute binaries without source while still maintaining C++'s increased compile-time type safety over Java. </quote>
Java.class files allow one to do this as well with compiled binaries, and throwing Javadocs in.JARs with your classes takes care of the documentation aspect of not having headers.
C++ doesn't *WIN* here, but I don't think it loses either. Different ways of accomplishing the same things I guess, but I do think Java's is simpler, and in some instances, better.
No finally() clause, that gets me every time. I understand that C++ wants to foster stack-based object creation vs. heap allocation, but dammit, a finally clause would have eliminated SO much redundancy in my code over the years...
You have a point here. AD certainly blows away any similar LDAP based setup I can imagine. Logins are one thing. Corporate auditing and security policies are something completely different, and nothing I know on Linux even REMOTELY approaches the flexibility AD gives me. This disappoints me. I'd REALLY REALLY love Microsoft to build a proprietary AD connector for Unix, because the benefits to my company are nearly unfathomable.
I work for one of those places that actually does require security and accountability, as opposed to simply keeping marketers from accidently overwriting developer documentation...
I buy this. A recent update to the BITS service on Windows update requires a reboot from a stock XP SP2 install CD. Then when installing device updates, those typically require a reboot, depending on the server.
Other than that, I can apply 30+ updates to a brand new install with only a little more difficulty than running 'yum update'.
As one of those people who's supported both for nigh on eleven years, the BIGGEST issue with me and Windows is that I need to install so much shit on it to make it usable. Perl, mySql, half of cpan.org, cygwin, etc.
That and the MS resource kit, which IMHO should ship with the fucking OS.
I slightly disagree. I think office 2000 is the relative pinnacle of the line. Maybe Office 12 (2006) will be a more compelling release, but I don't think 2000 can be beat. Just the improvements in Outlook alone over 97. Outlook 97 is a piece of shit compared to even Outlook98 (which I think you could only get via download from MS or from the Exchange Server CDs).
With subversion, you can always create a tag that represents a particular repository version in/tags. or/project/tags, but you have to use the command-line client or something like TortoiseSVN to do so through the normal svn:// protocol.
Someday it may be as simple as
http://website.tld/project/dir/file.c?revs to show revision logs... file.c?rev=101 to get a specific revision. file.c?diff=101,1 to diff to revisions.
Not sure how this would work at a project level, however....tld/project?rev=100/dir/file.c doesn't look right.
Smokescreen. What's his motivation? Bomb the US to cause the US to leave an area he cares deeply about? US bombs the fuck out of the area, war comes to the country next to Mecca...
No, methinks it was a deliberate attempt to cause us to further destablize the region through war, although to what end? Removing Saddam seems appropriate enough, but why? How could Saddam be sure 9/11 would incite a war in Iraq? Seems almost a foregone conclusion, actually... But is the battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan really something he'd want fought?
I don't know. Madmen are truly stupid sometimes... maybe Osama really is an idiot.
It was invade Iraq, or do nothing, get kicked out of Saudia Arabia, and be forced to lift the embargo, which could, and probably WOULD result in Saddam rearming himself (the French were lining up to sell him weapons) and threatening his neighbors again.
There was no choice. It was fight in Iraq now, or do it all over again in 10 years.
I repeat: Have you evaluated all the risks your changes pose? Have you even conceived of a valid series of test-cases to prove [within reason] your fix isn't going to cause worse problems?
WTF cares what language something is written in. This, I think is where Linux/OSS badly lags Windows, and seriously impacts developer mindshare.
COM. It sucks. It's poorly designed, crufty and has some nasty hacks to it. But it's nearly 13 years old now, and it's kicking some serious ass. I don't have to worry what language some bit of code is written it, it works, in Perl, Java, C++, C, Visual Basic, Delphi, Python, I could go on and on.
Nothing in the Unix world works the same way unless it's a text parser attached to a pipe(). That bothers me for some reason. Not so much that I don't have COM on Unix, but that there's no component architecture, secure, well designed, but usable and proliferate.
Slashdot Mirror
I do believe that it is impossible for recently designed automatic transmissions to be ripped to pieces by an engine. I've placed my car in drive to park on occasion (accidently) and it still works. The fact that there is no direct connect to the engine, and that the transmission works under hydrostatic pressure insulates it from a similar fate on a manual transmission of say, going from 5th gear to reverse (assuming the lockout broke).
And just about every recent automatic will cut off the engine once it red-lines. My plymouth voyager did, and my Mercury Sable do.
Um yeah, that's where this thing called Inheritance comes into play. If your toolkit is based on a model of Containers/Components, then all new components simply inherit from Component and do their magic differently. MFC manages it. Why a generic library couldn't as well, I cannot fathom.
And this is EASIER than C++?
I also love how sometime around 1.3 they changed the rules so that jarfiles no longer obey CLASSPATH. Yeah, that bit me for the better part of two hours...
Rule #1 of C++: NEVER use auto_ptr. What idiot thought this was a good idea to throw into the language should be dragged out behind the barn and shot. With the entire magazine.
Other than ACE::Ref_Counted_Auto_Ptr and one I rolled my ownsome a LONG time ago which isn't all that great, I'm not sure I know of a GOOD refcounted smart pointer implementation. Got recommendations?
My biggest gripe is the lack of operator overloading. Other than that, I'm a happy java user, although C++ my first love...
Ick, humanizing languages. eep.
Explain?
If you replace malloc()/free()/realloc() and new()/delete() how exactly can you get "MORE" correct and optimized with what are already "library" functions?
Methinks you are a troll.
The real problem is that different sharedlibs can indeed be linked to different memory allocators. Nothing in the C++ language will prevent you from called VirtualAlloc on Windows, or sbrk on Unix or whatever the syscall on your platform happens to be.
Try OTL. It's Streams based ODBC/OCI.
Sadly enough, C++ will let you shoot yourself in the foot and the knee and let you cast away constness... Eeep.
ImmutableList should throw an "ImmutableListException" when an add() is performed, although indeed, add() should probably be private to help prevent this from ever happening explicitly.
Objects should throw domain appropriate exceptions or return appropriate error codes, as opposed to "virtual function not present exceptions".
Third, it's the easiest way to allow people to distribute binaries without source while still maintaining C++'s increased compile-time type safety over Java.
</quote>
Java
C++ doesn't *WIN* here, but I don't think it loses either. Different ways of accomplishing the same things I guess, but I do think Java's is simpler, and in some instances, better.
C++ programmer of 11 years, Java of 5.
No finally() clause, that gets me every time. I understand that C++ wants to foster stack-based object creation vs. heap allocation, but dammit, a finally clause would have eliminated SO much redundancy in my code over the years...
You have a point here. AD certainly blows away any similar LDAP based setup I can imagine. Logins are one thing. Corporate auditing and security policies are something completely different, and nothing I know on Linux even REMOTELY approaches the flexibility AD gives me. This disappoints me. I'd REALLY REALLY love Microsoft to build a proprietary AD connector for Unix, because the benefits to my company are nearly unfathomable.
I work for one of those places that actually does require security and accountability, as opposed to simply keeping marketers from accidently overwriting developer documentation...
I buy this. A recent update to the BITS service on Windows update requires a reboot from a stock XP SP2 install CD. Then when installing device updates, those typically require a reboot, depending on the server.
Other than that, I can apply 30+ updates to a brand new install with only a little more difficulty than running 'yum update'.
As one of those people who's supported both for nigh on eleven years, the BIGGEST issue with me and Windows is that I need to install so much shit on it to make it usable. Perl, mySql, half of cpan.org, cygwin, etc.
That and the MS resource kit, which IMHO should ship with the fucking OS.
I slightly disagree. I think office 2000 is the relative pinnacle of the line. Maybe Office 12 (2006) will be a more compelling release, but I don't think 2000 can be beat. Just the improvements in Outlook alone over 97. Outlook 97 is a piece of shit compared to even Outlook98 (which I think you could only get via download from MS or from the Exchange Server CDs).
It means little HDD access, probably no DVD playback, maybe CD-Audio playback, but mostly office tasks/email/Internet.
Just my guess...
With subversion, you can always create a tag that represents a particular repository version in /tags. or /project/tags, but you have to use the command-line client or something like TortoiseSVN to do so through the normal svn:// protocol.
...tld/project?rev=100/dir/file.c doesn't look right.
Someday it may be as simple as
http://website.tld/project/dir/file.c?revs to show revision logs... file.c?rev=101 to get a specific revision. file.c?diff=101,1 to diff to revisions.
Not sure how this would work at a project level, however.
Could be because /. was one of the only fringey-mainstream sites still usable that day?
All modern graphical web clients (except Firefox, go figure) support WebDAV.
Personally, I think he was pissed we didn't finish the job in '91 after liberating Kuwait, and he wanted to goad us into doing it...
:-/
And personally, I think we let him...
Smokescreen. What's his motivation? Bomb the US to cause the US to leave an area he cares deeply about? US bombs the fuck out of the area, war comes to the country next to Mecca...
No, methinks it was a deliberate attempt to cause us to further destablize the region through war, although to what end? Removing Saddam seems appropriate enough, but why? How could Saddam be sure 9/11 would incite a war in Iraq? Seems almost a foregone conclusion, actually... But is the battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan really something he'd want fought?
I don't know. Madmen are truly stupid sometimes... maybe Osama really is an idiot.
It was invade Iraq, or do nothing, get kicked out of Saudia Arabia, and be forced to lift the embargo, which could, and probably WOULD result in Saddam rearming himself (the French were lining up to sell him weapons) and threatening his neighbors again.
There was no choice. It was fight in Iraq now, or do it all over again in 10 years.
Better yet, WeatherFox with Firefox @ http://www.mozilla.org
I repeat: Have you evaluated all the risks your changes pose? Have you even conceived of a valid series of test-cases to prove [within reason] your fix isn't going to cause worse problems?
WTF cares what language something is written in. This, I think is where Linux/OSS badly lags Windows, and seriously impacts developer mindshare.
COM. It sucks. It's poorly designed, crufty and has some nasty hacks to it. But it's nearly 13 years old now, and it's kicking some serious ass. I don't have to worry what language some bit of code is written it, it works, in Perl, Java, C++, C, Visual Basic, Delphi, Python, I could go on and on.
Nothing in the Unix world works the same way unless it's a text parser attached to a pipe(). That bothers me for some reason. Not so much that I don't have COM on Unix, but that there's no component architecture, secure, well designed, but usable and proliferate.