The bare-bones PC is for the enthusiast or the IT pro.
Or an average user who already has all necessary installation discs. Since most PCs nowadays can boot from an installation CD/DVD automatically, the only prerequisite is knowing that you can do it.
Knowing about the nasty bits is one reason (of many) why C++ is difficult. I have to say I'm not familiar with some of your examples though.
weird mixed signed/unsigned arithmetic
When? I haven't seen this, or it's been hidden from me.
C-style casts doing not what you think they're doing
Not sure if I agree that this is an issue. C++ allows you to do some weird casting, yes, but that also means that you the programmer have to know what you're doing. Casting is always bad and should be avoided whenever possible. Which is one thing I don't like about Java; it often forces me to do some very unsafe casting.
extremely complicated overloading resolution rules in presence of function templates, ADL
Could be, I don't even know what ADL is. The few times I've used function templates it's worked fine.
auto_ptr's copy-is-move
auto_ptr is useless. The few times I'm forced to use smart pointers I stick with boost::shared_ptr. Clumsy, but does the job.
wxWidgets has so far done everything I wish for. But I'm going to have a good look at Qt soon, now that it's open source.
I have never even looked at C#, so I don't know anything about it, and hopefully never will. That wasn't the topic anyway.
It hardly is, except if you have a bunch of veteran hardcore C++ developers in your company who really know their way around all the C++ quirks.
I disagree. Java seems to be the language with all the quirks. C++ is difficult to learn and use, yes, but it allows you to do so much more than Java. There are of course situations where Java is a much better tool than C++, but that's a different issue.
And even then, build process [sucks]
True, unfortunately.
and debugging capabilities for C++ still suck.
For which IDE? VS's debugger rocks. It's far better than either Weblogic, XCode, Eclipse or gd. MS can do some things right.
Many seem to long for a C++ GC. Personally, I can't see why. With all the containers and allocators provided in various libraries, I don't see a reason for using it. I'd be happy to see an example of when it would be useful, but so far I haven't. (Not trolling, it's a serious opinion, however flawed it may be.)
The Boost library has lambda functions. I have not used them yet, so I can't say how useful they are.
So the bottom question is, why do they go to Bill for comments? Exaggerated analogy ahead:
Reporter: Mr. Satan, what are your thoughts about heaven? Satan: Oh it's overrated. They say it's a nice place, but once you get there, what can you do? Plus, you have to lead a good life and pass through purgatory. You have to ask yourself, is it worth the trouble? You can go to Hell however you want and reap the benefits immediately. R: Dwelling in a pool of lava and being sodomized by your spiky manhood for eternity? S: Please, those are falsehoods spread by a jealous competition. We take no pleasure from punishing our subjects.
Yes, but there's the matter of getting the nuke near the asteroid in time. While small on a planetary scale, these things can still be freaking big, so a nuclear blast will only nudge it a small fraction of a degree. (We only want to nudge it, disintegration is generally a bad idea.) And if the asteroid nearly misses us, the gravitational forces can still be quite devastating.
It's pretty clear he writes on the blackboard as a punishment, like a teacher would punish a pupil.
Having seen the trailer, it's quite heavy on propaganda, and light on everything else. What did these people write, why were they persecuted? (using "persecuted" liberally). Many of the quotes seemed taken out of context. One man mentions "neo-Darwinism" which I've never heard about before.
Remember, evolution has been proven. It exists. But just because it can't explain *everything* these people reject it. When Mr Stein says "intelligent design", he means "created by God". He's stated that quite clearly before, and does so in the trailer.
It's bad of course when people fall victim to witch hunts, just for stating a differing opinion, but that's a different issue altogether. Then there's a problem with the society we live in.
And please stop with the Moore-bashing, it's getting tiresome.
I tried to find a PM button to address you directly, but anyway:
I often have trouble with containers, to pick a specific issue. Since they store Object:s, I can never be sure what they contain, and after retrieving an element it has to be casted. I've seen someone mention that this can be solved with reflection, and there's supposed to be a template mechanism, like Vector<MyClass> for instance. I haven't been able to make good of any of those though, and I have never seen any existing code making use of those mechanisms.
Another problem for me is element manipulation. The only way I've been able to alter a container elemenent is extracting it and deleting it from the container, make the changes and then putting it back. Which is fine for smaller structures, but when the container has tens of thousands of elements of a few hundred bytes each, and each needs to be changed, then the problems start.
If you have any pointers to share, I'd be happy to get them.
This is so you don't have to trademark every possible color combination of your mark
Not marks or logos or whatever. Patterns. It is possible to trademark a pattern with a colour. For instance, the Swedish bed manufacturer Hästens managed to trademark a blue plaid pattern. Whether that trademark is valid outside Sweden is another issue of course.
It's not copyright, it's trademark. I know it's possible to trademark colours in USA, but you cannot (at least until recently) trademark colours in the EU. You can trademark a pattern in a combination with colour(s), but even then it's not certain.
But Java was written to replace C++ at the application level, and as such it does a tremendous job.
Not sure what you mean with application level, but I'm going to disagree anyway.
I've been a professional Java programmer for 2 years now, and the more I use it, the less I like it. Java behaves like an advanced scripting language, and it's great as long as the programming tasks stay reasonably simple. But beyond some hard-to-define point, where I'm right now, Java just doesn't cut it. Too many pitfalls, too many workarounds.
Fortunately not. Oracle and MySQL operate in two different worlds. Postgres operates somewhere in between, but much closer to MySQL than Oracle. I really don't see the point of trying to compete with both products, it's just not cost effective.
OK, let me clarify: For STL containers, the developers tried to make the interfaces generic and intuitive. operator[] can be expected to behave in a certain way for the containers that implement it, for example. Method names and implementations are common across all containers, where applicable.
This is something that Java containers lack. But of course, to fully appreciate the ramifications of this, you need to have used them for a while.
But what do I know, I only have a Master of Science in Human-Computer Interaction.
If you'd bothered to read the comments on that page, you would've seen plenty of examples why operator overloading is a good thing.
It's amusing seeing Java fanbois whining about operator overloading being a "bad idea", since Java is already riddled with shitty implementations. Just look at containers, for example.
You were modded funny, but there are actually a few good points:
* Make solar energy affordable
SOLAR ENERGY IS AFFORDABLE! What solar energy isn't is competitive in today's free market.
* Provide access to clean water
There are plenty of solutions for providing clean water to everyone who need it. There are just too many political (including war) roadblocks to provide it.
I guess you find this obvious. It SHOULD be obvious.
Much research rely on private funding and venture capitalism. Even if an institute resides on University grounds that doesn't mean that it funds the research going on there. Institutes take the money where they can get it. An institute I worked at received large donations from IBM in exchange for research data.
There's just not enough public funding to go around. If you'd worked at a University, you would know this. In no way does this mean that the University has become "corrupted".
Slashdot Mirror
Or an average user who already has all necessary installation discs. Since most PCs nowadays can boot from an installation CD/DVD automatically, the only prerequisite is knowing that you can do it.
Knowing about the nasty bits is one reason (of many) why C++ is difficult. I have to say I'm not familiar with some of your examples though.
When? I haven't seen this, or it's been hidden from me.
Not sure if I agree that this is an issue. C++ allows you to do some weird casting, yes, but that also means that you the programmer have to know what you're doing. Casting is always bad and should be avoided whenever possible. Which is one thing I don't like about Java; it often forces me to do some very unsafe casting.
Could be, I don't even know what ADL is. The few times I've used function templates it's worked fine.
auto_ptr is useless. The few times I'm forced to use smart pointers I stick with boost::shared_ptr. Clumsy, but does the job.
wxWidgets has so far done everything I wish for. But I'm going to have a good look at Qt soon, now that it's open source.
I have never even looked at C#, so I don't know anything about it, and hopefully never will. That wasn't the topic anyway.
You asked for examples. I gave you one.
Opera uses Qt.
I disagree. Java seems to be the language with all the quirks. C++ is difficult to learn and use, yes, but it allows you to do so much more than Java. There are of course situations where Java is a much better tool than C++, but that's a different issue.
True, unfortunately.
For which IDE? VS's debugger rocks. It's far better than either Weblogic, XCode, Eclipse or gd. MS can do some things right.
Many seem to long for a C++ GC. Personally, I can't see why. With all the containers and allocators provided in various libraries, I don't see a reason for using it. I'd be happy to see an example of when it would be useful, but so far I haven't. (Not trolling, it's a serious opinion, however flawed it may be.)
The Boost library has lambda functions. I have not used them yet, so I can't say how useful they are.
So the bottom question is, why do they go to Bill for comments? Exaggerated analogy ahead:
Reporter: Mr. Satan, what are your thoughts about heaven?
Satan: Oh it's overrated. They say it's a nice place, but once you get there, what can you do? Plus, you have to lead a good life and pass through purgatory. You have to ask yourself, is it worth the trouble? You can go to Hell however you want and reap the benefits immediately.
R: Dwelling in a pool of lava and being sodomized by your spiky manhood for eternity?
S: Please, those are falsehoods spread by a jealous competition. We take no pleasure from punishing our subjects.
Yes, but there's the matter of getting the nuke near the asteroid in time. While small on a planetary scale, these things can still be freaking big, so a nuclear blast will only nudge it a small fraction of a degree. (We only want to nudge it, disintegration is generally a bad idea.) And if the asteroid nearly misses us, the gravitational forces can still be quite devastating.
It sounded like an ID buzzword, so I just dismissed it as such. Live and learn. Thanks for the lecture link.
It's pretty clear he writes on the blackboard as a punishment, like a teacher would punish a pupil.
Having seen the trailer, it's quite heavy on propaganda, and light on everything else. What did these people write, why were they persecuted? (using "persecuted" liberally). Many of the quotes seemed taken out of context. One man mentions "neo-Darwinism" which I've never heard about before.
Remember, evolution has been proven. It exists. But just because it can't explain *everything* these people reject it. When Mr Stein says "intelligent design", he means "created by God". He's stated that quite clearly before, and does so in the trailer.
It's bad of course when people fall victim to witch hunts, just for stating a differing opinion, but that's a different issue altogether. Then there's a problem with the society we live in.
And please stop with the Moore-bashing, it's getting tiresome.
In case this was a serious question: Giant capacitors, connected in parallel.
I tried to find a PM button to address you directly, but anyway:
I often have trouble with containers, to pick a specific issue. Since they store Object:s, I can never be sure what they contain, and after retrieving an element it has to be casted. I've seen someone mention that this can be solved with reflection, and there's supposed to be a template mechanism, like Vector<MyClass> for instance. I haven't been able to make good of any of those though, and I have never seen any existing code making use of those mechanisms.
Another problem for me is element manipulation. The only way I've been able to alter a container elemenent is extracting it and deleting it from the container, make the changes and then putting it back. Which is fine for smaller structures, but when the container has tens of thousands of elements of a few hundred bytes each, and each needs to be changed, then the problems start.
If you have any pointers to share, I'd be happy to get them.
It has been done, in the US.
Not marks or logos or whatever. Patterns. It is possible to trademark a pattern with a colour. For instance, the Swedish bed manufacturer Hästens managed to trademark a blue plaid pattern. Whether that trademark is valid outside Sweden is another issue of course.
It's not copyright, it's trademark. I know it's possible to trademark colours in USA, but you cannot (at least until recently) trademark colours in the EU. You can trademark a pattern in a combination with colour(s), but even then it's not certain.
Not sure what you mean with application level, but I'm going to disagree anyway.
I've been a professional Java programmer for 2 years now, and the more I use it, the less I like it. Java behaves like an advanced scripting language, and it's great as long as the programming tasks stay reasonably simple. But beyond some hard-to-define point, where I'm right now, Java just doesn't cut it. Too many pitfalls, too many workarounds.
Fortunately not. Oracle and MySQL operate in two different worlds. Postgres operates somewhere in between, but much closer to MySQL than Oracle. I really don't see the point of trying to compete with both products, it's just not cost effective.
OK, let me clarify: For STL containers, the developers tried to make the interfaces generic and intuitive. operator[] can be expected to behave in a certain way for the containers that implement it, for example. Method names and implementations are common across all containers, where applicable.
This is something that Java containers lack. But of course, to fully appreciate the ramifications of this, you need to have used them for a while.
But what do I know, I only have a Master of Science in Human-Computer Interaction.
Copies? Have you ever used them? Java containers are nothing like C++ ones. Two obvious problems are:
You would know this if you knew anything about programming the languages. But I guess name calling is easier.
If you'd bothered to read the comments on that page, you would've seen plenty of examples why operator overloading is a good thing.
It's amusing seeing Java fanbois whining about operator overloading being a "bad idea", since Java is already riddled with shitty implementations. Just look at containers, for example.
Why would
print("astring" + "anotherstring" + "thirdstring");
be better than
cout << "astring" << "anotherstring" << "thirdstring";
?
Semantically, they're both equally bad.
You were modded funny, but there are actually a few good points:
* Make solar energy affordable
SOLAR ENERGY IS AFFORDABLE! What solar energy isn't is competitive in today's free market.
* Provide access to clean water
There are plenty of solutions for providing clean water to everyone who need it. There are just too many political (including war) roadblocks to provide it.
I guess you find this obvious. It SHOULD be obvious.
?
It's a physics article. Of course you get a physics debate.
And what's with the name calling and ranting?
Much research rely on private funding and venture capitalism. Even if an institute resides on University grounds that doesn't mean that it funds the research going on there. Institutes take the money where they can get it. An institute I worked at received large donations from IBM in exchange for research data.
There's just not enough public funding to go around. If you'd worked at a University, you would know this. In no way does this mean that the University has become "corrupted".
Sorry, "many" was a bit of a stretch in that regard. Seems it's UK, Ireland and Portugal, according to Wikipedia.
Many countries (in Europe at least) have banned talking while driving, even with headset. More are considering it.