You can treat C++ as the name implies; plain old C with some extra stuff you may or may not use.
Nothing in C++ is forcing you to create object oriented code.
I am about to start a personal project which I believe should be done in C/C++.
I cringe when someone says "C/C++". Sort that out first by choosing one language for your project. Either write lean and clean pure C code, or fully use the proper abstractions of C++ to write memory-safe and easily-maintainable code, but don't make an unprofessional crusty mix of the languages.
Since C++ is the language of choice when you need performance (along with C and - sometimes - assembly), to write good code it's essential to understand what each line of code does to the machine (memory, registers,...) and if/how instructions can be optimized by the compiler.
No.
C++ abstracts away too much for that to be useful.
Not true at all. I have been able to install the Windows 10 Technical Preview to all sorts of crusty old PCs that have not heard about EFI or even 64-bit.
I think the world is simply too complex to properly learn everything ground-up. Even mathematics is largely teached with applied concepts. Here's this cool formula, someone invented it centuries ago, but we won't spend time deriving it down to bits and pieces. You can just add water and heat it in microwave.
I don't think most companies choose the tools on the basis whether the source code is available. If open source tools are used, the motivation is usually that they are free, or that they simply do the job well.
OEMs put all sorts of hacks in place just to get their garbage software to work. There is no concept of security, the goal is just to get the quickest access to the resource. This is the same story than the LG split screen software.
Samsung engineers have probably moved to other projects already.
In all fairness, I think they could make Half-Life 3 a feasible investment. They just have better things to do.
I wonder what would happen if Valve handed off HL2EP3 or HL3 to a company like Gearbox. The demand for those games is pretty high, so maybe someone could still create them.
Slashdot Mirror
You can treat C++ as the name implies; plain old C with some extra stuff you may or may not use.
Nothing in C++ is forcing you to create object oriented code.
Objects are the main benefit of C++ over C.
I am about to start a personal project which I believe should be done in C/C++.
I cringe when someone says "C/C++". Sort that out first by choosing one language for your project. Either write lean and clean pure C code, or fully use the proper abstractions of C++ to write memory-safe and easily-maintainable code, but don't make an unprofessional crusty mix of the languages.
Ah, the Transport Information Layer, an important concept in network technology.
2.5" Hitachi and Toshiba drives are extremely good.
One big problem is that China doesn't want to buy our garbage anymore.
Well, we westeners are still happy to buy all sorts of garbage manufactured in China. ;)
Good points. You convinced me that it actually might be beneficial to know what happens under the hood even with C++, to write professional code.
Which is in line with my comment: when the programmer uses proper highly-abstracted C++ mechanisms, micro-managing knowledge is not useful.
Since C++ is the language of choice when you need performance (along with C and - sometimes - assembly), to write good code it's essential to understand what each line of code does to the machine (memory, registers, ...) and if/how instructions can be optimized by the compiler.
No.
C++ abstracts away too much for that to be useful.
With C that kind of knowledge can be useful.
C++ gives a nice balance between high performance and relatively good safety.
Also the "Share" links under comments are quite redundant as well IMHO.
Not true at all. I have been able to install the Windows 10 Technical Preview to all sorts of crusty old PCs that have not heard about EFI or even 64-bit.
No QA team is left at Microsoft and were laid off
No QA team? Sure, some QA people were laid off, but I'm quite sure Microsoft still has a nicely sized QA department. :)
Okay, dgg.dd. Gotcha. Should be easy enough to remember.
I think the world is simply too complex to properly learn everything ground-up. Even mathematics is largely teached with applied concepts. Here's this cool formula, someone invented it centuries ago, but we won't spend time deriving it down to bits and pieces. You can just add water and heat it in microwave.
I don't think most companies choose the tools on the basis whether the source code is available. If open source tools are used, the motivation is usually that they are free, or that they simply do the job well.
But schools should really be teaching you how to LEARN NEW THINGS.
How would that be implemented? Should there be separate courses for "learning to learn"? What would the contents of those courses be?
That kind of scam could actually be crafted by claiming that other watch bands create some kind of harmful electric interference to the watch.
OEMs put all sorts of hacks in place just to get their garbage software to work. There is no concept of security, the goal is just to get the quickest access to the resource. This is the same story than the LG split screen software.
Samsung engineers have probably moved to other projects already.
Hmm, apparently the key actually isn't dual-function but it only has two names.
ArcadeMan, the Al Lowe of Slashdot.
You probably mean Windows+Break (bring up system information).
Windows+Pause (when Shift key is held among Win and Break) does nothing.
Yep, that's a good point, I was thinking the same.
In all fairness, I think they could make Half-Life 3 a feasible investment. They just have better things to do.
I wonder what would happen if Valve handed off HL2EP3 or HL3 to a company like Gearbox. The demand for those games is pretty high, so maybe someone could still create them.
No, not that. Their online game store and multiplayer games such as Dota and Left 4 Dead.
Half-Life 3 has never been announced, so I wouldn't call it vaporware. There has been no promise of it. The product only exists in speculation.