Writing modern C++ doesn't mean you have to use OOP. You don't. You can do data driven quite easily.
However, modern C++ means to take advantage of modern constructs, like smart pointers, and modern containers, instead of using unsafe and non-bounds checked arrays.
I think he means that a good Fortran programmer can write code in the same style and using the same idioms as Fortran in any language, say, Python. While that might make for good Fortran code, it makes for very poor Python code.
In the same respect, a good C programmer can write code in the same style and using the same idioms as C in C++. While that would likely be very good C code, it is very poor C++ code. Yes, it is possible and it will still compile. However, just because something compiles does not make it a good idea.
Works fine and being a good idea are two very different things, however. One of the more common causes of C++ bugs is that people are writing C code in C++, eschewing much more modern and safe idioms. Naked pointers using new and delete (or even malloc and free if you really want to do the C thing), instead of smart pointers, plain old arrays instead of STL containers, etc.
Well, for one, why the hell are you trying to send a message that doesn't exist? What the hell would you expect to happen? And if you're going to say something about not knowing if that method exists, there's always +respondsToSelector
While it would be nice for developers to "get their heads out of their butts," that's not a real solution and you know it. Developing some kind of extension to C, or some other systems programming language which has protection against buffer problems is.
Given two schools which are approximately equal in academics, would you consider someone who chose the school with a better sports team as one of the tiebreaking criteria to be a "student you don't want to attract"?
Despite what you want to believe, a lot of people like watching sports. Having a good sports team on campus means that there is one more option for things to do while you're there.
Horseshit. This has absolutely nothing to do with government. You simply cannot articulate any reason why you would bring up government other than you're an anti-government nut.
No, it actually has been working extremely shitty. Besides, you're asking for the force of law to ban unions. So I ask you again: Because businesses do a lot of very bad things, should we ban them as well?
Computer architecture? Like processor architecture? That would most definitely fall under the Electrical/Computer Engineering department.
If you're talking about architecture of software programs, then that would definitely fall under Computer Science or Software Engineering.
Besides, just because the Computer Science department might be separate from the EE department doesn't mean they can't collaborate for things like this that are common. In fact, they'd be incredibly stupid not to. There's a very good chance the students from the different departments are going to be working together in the real world, might as well get them used to it as soon as possible.
Just because something is part of the government does not mean it should be a sinkhole to swallow taxpayer dollars.
I won't disagree, but I will say that just because something isn't profitable is not a reason for it to not exist.
As for the Post Office, despite what you may think, they were actually profitable for quite some time. The downturn on their profits is mostly attributed to the rise of email, and trend away from written communication, rather than any kind of "government inefficiency" you might try to blame.
And as for Amtrak, well, lets give them the same amount of subsidies that we give air travel and roads, and see how poorly they do.
You're erroneously linking interest in athletics to interest in colleges
And you're erroneously trying to say there is no interest. There is clearly an overlap, as shown that schools with winning teams notice an increase in enrollments.
And yes, it would have been stupid for your school to accept that money. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Horseshit. Because I don't fall for your bullshit of "Everything that ever goes wrong, ever, is the government's fault!"
You're obviously not intelligent to explain yourself. And further, you're not intelligent enough to realize when you've brought up something completely unrelated.
No, I think it gives a valid argument because that's actually what's supposed to happen. You're saying that once a company has an employee, they shouldn't have to keep making that employee happy. That they should be entitled to that employee's work in perpetuity.
The salary would be justified or they wouldn't be paying Mike that much
Not necessarily. How many top executives of companies have run them into the ground, only to be paid millions anyway? Saying that because someone gets a certain level of pay, it must be justified does not work. It's entirely possible for Mike's salary to not be justified in the least. I think we all know people who have gotten somewhat substantial salaries, that did fuck all for the company.
Except you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. You basically said it's completely ok, even without this price-fixing scheme, for Google to band the entire rest of the company together to bargain against you, but it's not ok for you to gather some of your fellow employees to band together to attempt to even out the balance of power. That's not applying the law equally. That's saying that business is better than you.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm 80% sure that C has a qsort function built into it's standard library.
The thing with BigO notation is that, if N is large, it's going to dwarf that constant.
Writing modern C++ doesn't mean you have to use OOP. You don't. You can do data driven quite easily.
However, modern C++ means to take advantage of modern constructs, like smart pointers, and modern containers, instead of using unsafe and non-bounds checked arrays.
I think he means that a good Fortran programmer can write code in the same style and using the same idioms as Fortran in any language, say, Python. While that might make for good Fortran code, it makes for very poor Python code.
In the same respect, a good C programmer can write code in the same style and using the same idioms as C in C++. While that would likely be very good C code, it is very poor C++ code. Yes, it is possible and it will still compile. However, just because something compiles does not make it a good idea.
Works fine and being a good idea are two very different things, however. One of the more common causes of C++ bugs is that people are writing C code in C++, eschewing much more modern and safe idioms. Naked pointers using new and delete (or even malloc and free if you really want to do the C thing), instead of smart pointers, plain old arrays instead of STL containers, etc.
Well, for one, why the hell are you trying to send a message that doesn't exist? What the hell would you expect to happen? And if you're going to say something about not knowing if that method exists, there's always +respondsToSelector
I seem to recall hearing about some ARM processors that actually have hardware support for Java bytecode.
Get businesses to pay for good programmers, and stop hiring the cheap, shitty ones.
NOTE: This is not to insinuate that all expensive programmers are great, and all cheap programmers are crap.
There is nothing I'd love more. But at work, we're still stuck on VS2003.
C++11 only adds to the feature bloat
What feature bloat? If you don't use the new features, you don't incur any cost. No bloat.
And many of the new features that you really should be using (smart pointers) have very little, if any overhead.
While it would be nice for developers to "get their heads out of their butts," that's not a real solution and you know it. Developing some kind of extension to C, or some other systems programming language which has protection against buffer problems is.
Given two schools which are approximately equal in academics, would you consider someone who chose the school with a better sports team as one of the tiebreaking criteria to be a "student you don't want to attract"?
Despite what you want to believe, a lot of people like watching sports. Having a good sports team on campus means that there is one more option for things to do while you're there.
Horseshit. This has absolutely nothing to do with government. You simply cannot articulate any reason why you would bring up government other than you're an anti-government nut.
No, it actually has been working extremely shitty. Besides, you're asking for the force of law to ban unions. So I ask you again: Because businesses do a lot of very bad things, should we ban them as well?
Computer architecture? Like processor architecture? That would most definitely fall under the Electrical/Computer Engineering department.
If you're talking about architecture of software programs, then that would definitely fall under Computer Science or Software Engineering.
Besides, just because the Computer Science department might be separate from the EE department doesn't mean they can't collaborate for things like this that are common. In fact, they'd be incredibly stupid not to. There's a very good chance the students from the different departments are going to be working together in the real world, might as well get them used to it as soon as possible.
Just because something is part of the government does not mean it should be a sinkhole to swallow taxpayer dollars.
I won't disagree, but I will say that just because something isn't profitable is not a reason for it to not exist.
As for the Post Office, despite what you may think, they were actually profitable for quite some time. The downturn on their profits is mostly attributed to the rise of email, and trend away from written communication, rather than any kind of "government inefficiency" you might try to blame.
And as for Amtrak, well, lets give them the same amount of subsidies that we give air travel and roads, and see how poorly they do.
You're erroneously linking interest in athletics to interest in colleges
And you're erroneously trying to say there is no interest. There is clearly an overlap, as shown that schools with winning teams notice an increase in enrollments.
And yes, it would have been stupid for your school to accept that money. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Only if you lack reading comprehension. He said they don't make money just from ticket sales, but from ticket sales and alumni donations.
Horseshit. Because I don't fall for your bullshit of "Everything that ever goes wrong, ever, is the government's fault!"
You're obviously not intelligent to explain yourself. And further, you're not intelligent enough to realize when you've brought up something completely unrelated.
No, I think it gives a valid argument because that's actually what's supposed to happen. You're saying that once a company has an employee, they shouldn't have to keep making that employee happy. That they should be entitled to that employee's work in perpetuity.
The salary would be justified or they wouldn't be paying Mike that much
Not necessarily. How many top executives of companies have run them into the ground, only to be paid millions anyway? Saying that because someone gets a certain level of pay, it must be justified does not work. It's entirely possible for Mike's salary to not be justified in the least. I think we all know people who have gotten somewhat substantial salaries, that did fuck all for the company.
They were voted out in favor of more extreme Tea Party people. Many of those who were voted out were incumbent Republicans.
Just because the group you wanted to get in didn't get in doesn't change facts.
That's not your objective and you fucking know it. Quit being dishonest.
Except you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. You basically said it's completely ok, even without this price-fixing scheme, for Google to band the entire rest of the company together to bargain against you, but it's not ok for you to gather some of your fellow employees to band together to attempt to even out the balance of power. That's not applying the law equally. That's saying that business is better than you.
You know, I could say very similar things about a lot of businesses. Should we ban them as well?