| comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com | Google Groups |  |
| Unsure why you received this message? You previously subscribed to digests from this group, but we haven't been sending them for a while. We fixed that, but if you don't want to get these messages, send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
- Visual C++ Version 6 (Visual Studio 98) - 19 Updates
- Apology to the group - 2 Updates
- Unresolved External Reference Puzzle - 3 Updates
- High Frequency Trading/C++ - 1 Update
| Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>: Sep 16 07:17AM +0200 On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 23:59:39 -0500 > belief and faith, including the 'scientific' ones. You cannot speak > of origin religiously or scientifically and not have to rely on > belief and faith. It is not a scientifically provable thing. Not true. Evolution that it happens is proven. Without that we wouldn't speak about it. Do we? If you > ages, and that all the laws of physics and science just happened to > work out perfectly. Well...close anyway, I do have a bad back and > knees. You have to believe what you observe. > What people call and tout as "science" is itself a religion and they > are just as fanatic and emotional over it as people are over any > religion. Nope. Materialists are fanatical, but not all people that believes in science are fanatical. > It simply is not a philosophically sound argument. A is not proven > true and B is not proven true, and even if they were, they don't > prove C. A) There are evidences for it B) Logical nonsense C) Bible is book of myths and logical fallacies with some truth in it > themselves argue over, much less uneducated folks whom believe we > come from monkeys, which was another claim of Mr Fibble Sausages. > Darwin himself never claimed we came from monkeys. Evolution says that we have common ancestor. What that can be if not some early monkey? |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 16 10:01AM +0200 On 15/09/14 17:13, Christopher Pisz wrote: > Wow. comp.lang.c++.theology > The scientific view takes just as much "faith" and has just as many > things that "cannot be proven." No, there is no "faith" involved in science. There is faith in scientists - we have to believe that "they" are doing a good and honest job once the science gets beyond our own personal knowledge and ability. This is why "scientific results" do not become "scientific fact" until a long period of peer review and replication of results by others. In science, there are simply things that "we" don't yet know or understand. There may well be things that we will never know or fully understand. There are always more questions - and each good answers leads to more questions. And the "holy grail" for any scientist is to take a known, solid scientific theory, and break it - this is the antithesis of "faith". > where did this super dense mass come from? What was the cause in the > scientific cause and effect? What came before that? Eventually you have > to just throw your hands up in the air and say "It just was." No, you say "I don't know". You then try to figure out if there is a way for you to learn or find out what happened. /I/ don't know what happened before the big bang - I don't even know if the question makes sense. I know that scientists are working on the problem, and there are a number of theories - but I can't say if any of them will ever be validated. But until then, you say "We don't know" - or "We don't know yet", if you are feeling optimistic. It is not "faith", because it is an open question waiting for an answer - it is not a pseudo answer given in some text, for which it is heretical to question. > Why did > chaos become order, contrary to science's own law? Scientific laws do not contradict that one (don't worry, most people find the laws of thermodynamics very difficult to comprehend). > How did single cell > organisms become multicell organisms? A lot of progress has been made on that one recently - and single cellular organisms have been turned into simple multi-cellular organisms in the lab via "unnatural evolution" (i.e., evolution but where the scientists decides who is "fittest" to survive to the next generation. The principle is the same, it's just faster for the scientist). Of course, that does not say how the step actually occurred in our past - it merely shows a mechanism through which it /could/ have occurred. > biology book. I think science takes just as much 'faith', but for some > reason people don't have such a problem with "we'll just accept that the > magical super dense ball in the sky just was" There are certainly gaps in science. As Dara O'Briain says, /of course/ science doesn't have all the answers. Otherwise we'd stop doing it. But it is not "faith". > Also, I don't see how evolution 'proves' that God does not exist or that > Adam did not exist. I've never heard the latter argument before. You are correct that evolution does not prove the non-existence of a god (or any other super-natural entities or effects). Such things cannot be proven scientifically. All science can do is remove the necessity or motivation for using divine explanations for the world around us. Our ancestors looked up at a thunderstorm, and concluded that since they had no natural explanation for lightning, it must be Thor doing battle with giants. It was a great story, and explained many otherwise inexplicable things. When we learned how lightning really works (there are still several open scientific questions in that area too), we no longer needed to appeal to Thor. Still it does not scientifically disprove the existence of Thor - but you would not say that a lack of believe in Thor requires "faith". <http://www.last-thursday.org/> |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 16 10:04AM +0200 On 15/09/14 19:51, Drew Lawson wrote: > Unfortunately, many people who claim to speak for Science often > claim that it does. And that, IMO, leads to these tiresome > pseudo-debates. There are lots of people who claim to speak for others, but don't understand the situation themselves. And usually it is these fools that speak the loudest. You are right that this leads to tiresome debates - but it can often lead to far worse, especially when they claim to speak for a religion or a nationality. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 16 10:13AM +0200 On 15/09/14 21:13, Christopher Pisz wrote: > claim to be up to speed on physics. Didn't the measurement of the Higgs > somehow destroy the multiverse concept? That's what I saw on Discovery > Channel anyway...Discovery Channel isn't very good with their explanations. Discovery Channel can be interesting and entertaining, but it is a poor source of science. The concept of multiple universes is very much an open question, with many different ways in which they might exist. Measurements of the Higg's Boson influenced some of those theories, and probably ruled out a few possibilities. And the idea of what happened "before" the big bang is also open. We do not know the extent to which "time" started at the big bang, or if it existed before in some way. (We /do/ know that time is not the simple linear progression that we are familiar with in everyday life - so intuition is a bad guide to the concept of "time" on these scales.) Bo is wrong to be so categoric about it - at best, he can say that the currently accepted theories say that time and space came into existence during the big bang, though we don't know what happened in the first 10^-44 seconds or so. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 16 10:16AM +0200 On 15/09/14 21:07, Christopher Pisz wrote: > conclusion. I for one have no idea how evolution proves the OT to be > false. Are you talking about the fictional kind of evolution that claims > we came from monkeys? Or the scientific kind? I suspect he meant the scientific kind that shows that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. (The idea that humans are "descended from apes" or "from monkeys" is a common misunderstanding. We /are/ a type of ape, and the modern apes and monkeys share common ancestors - we did not descend from modern apes or monkeys any more than you are a descendant of your siblings or cousins.) |
| "J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net>: Sep 16 08:57AM -0400 In article <ZaidnV8zmrB0pIrJnZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk says... > If Adam never existed then the whole Old Testament falls down like a > house of cards. Evolution shows us that humans evolved: there was no > first human called "Adam". So you know the name of the first individual who was genetically human and it was not "Adam"? In any case, a friend of mine who has spent the last couple of decades working on the use of words in the Bible tells me that an argument can be made based on such word use that Adam was not the first human, he was the first of some special kind of human, and that there were plenty of other humans around. He won't speculate about what was special about Adam--was he the first Semite? Was he the guy who invented farming? Was he raised by space aliens? In any case proving that there was no person named "Adam" from whom all humanity is descended does not disprove Genesis, it merely disproves the fundamentalist Sunday-school version of it. |
| "J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net>: Sep 16 09:08AM -0400 In article <lv7sl1$vc$2@dont-email.me>, nospam@notanaddress.com says... > >> I have never heard of any experiment that produced life. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter > Not life. Not even close. You are not understanding what you read, not even close. We have designed a genetic sequence for a living organism from the ground up, put that in a dead cell, and the cell has come to life and behaved as the designers intended. Now we have the relatively easy task of synthesizing the rest of the cell and once we have done that we will be creating life from raw materials. But the hard part is done. |
| "J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net>: Sep 16 09:18AM -0400 In article <lv7sj8$vc$1@dont-email.me>, nospam@notanaddress.com says... > Do we have a museum somewhere where I can go and look at the actual > fossils of some other species along the time line as it grew hands, > arms, feet, the human eye, and emotions? To see all the steps you would have to go to several museums, however yes, there are such. Of course they are not going to let you actually handle the fossils which are quite fragile unless you can show that you have training or experience that indicates that you know how to handle them without damaging them and have a good reason to be messing with them. > Or do we just have a story book > that claims that is what happened? See the previous paragraph. > two arms, two legs, and can think, therefore we came from apes', or 'it > has X number of common genomes, so therefore we were all apes', because > that, again, is quite the leap. If it an ape that has two arms, two legs, and can think, how is it different from a human? By the standard of evidence that you seem to be demanding you cannot prove that you are human. Can you name every ancestor in the chain between you and Adam? If not then you can't prove that you are descended from him. Get thee from me spawn of Satan. > Sounds very much like my stated reason for its acceptance... > Just like people deny it because it contradicts their beliefs, people > accept it because it fits best with theirs. No, it fits best with the evidence. > > and/or because the idea that they have ancestors common with the apes is revolting to > > them. > Darwin himself says that we did not evolve from apes... So why do you think that apes are any kind of issue? > Where are all these half human/half ape people anyway and why aren't > they at varying stages of their evolution? The same place all the half-human half "mighty man" people who live to be a thousand are? > have an entire race of people running around with claws and tails? > Or are you going to be incredibly un-PC and tell me some race of people > on Earth is "still catching up?" "Claws and tails"? You could at least learn the difference between an ape and a monkey and something about simian anatomy before you spout off with this nonsense. However there is this phenomenon called "extinction" that you might have heard about. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 16 06:10PM +0100 On 16/09/2014 06:17, Melzzzzz wrote: >> prove C. > A) There are evidences for it > B) Logical nonsense It isn't nonsense mate: humans evolved ergo there was no *first* human. /Flibble |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 16 06:13PM +0100 On 16/09/2014 13:57, J. Clarke wrote: > person named "Adam" from whom all humanity is descended does not > disprove Genesis, it merely disproves the fundamentalist Sunday-school > version of it. Not only was there no first human called "Adam" there was no first human period: humans evolved. /Flibble |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 16 10:17AM -0700 On Saturday, September 13, 2014 7:25:48 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Should be getting it next week. I's arrived! It's arrived! Woo hoo! Will be installing it tonight (James 4:15 -- Lord willing). 1998 ... here I come! :-) :-) :-) ----- If I'm able to do so, I'll post a brief video demonstrating the speed differences between VS98, VS2003, and VS2008 on edit-and-continue. You'll see why I did it, and the difference it makes in debugging (that is, assuming I can even get my code base to compile (without too much tweaking) on such antiquated technology :-)). Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 16 10:40AM -0700 On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:18:19 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > ...on edit-and-continue. > You'll see why I did it, and the difference it makes in debugging... Here's an interesting bit of trivia. I had upgrade to VS98 at work from my previous DOS-only based toolset. I had typically only used QEdit and TSE for editing, and then command line batch files for compilation. It took me a while to get used to the VS98 IDE. One day while stepping through code, I accidentally hit the keyboard. When I did so it changed the contents. This was not possible with what I had previously known, which was the CodeView Debugger, which would allow you to navigate through the ode, but not alter it. The change freaked me out and I thought ... "oh, how interesting, I can make code changes while I'm debugging my code so that when I get done debugging they will already be there and I can compile them immediately. That's so nice. I hadn't noticed the "Apply Changes" button which became highlighted. So ... for a couple weeks, I would make changes, stop my debugging session, recompile, and restart my debugging session. Then one day... I noticed the button for "Apply Changes" show up when I had made some changes. I thought, "Oh, how interesting. What is that?" And I hovered over it and I saw the tooltip "Apply Changes" and I said out loud, "What?!" And I clicked it ... and it applied changes ... and I was able to continue working on my code from there... I was forever converted. This was circa 1999 I believe. Very interesting revelation. I still have the laptop I discovered that feature on. An old IBM ThinkPad. It doesn't work any more. It was damaged in a power surge at an apartment I was living in circa 2001, but I honestly keep it around because of that one connotation -- where I first learned of edit-and- continue. An insignificant thing to many, but my life was never the same thereafter. My eyes had been opened and I saw ... possibilities. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Stuart <DerTopper@web.de>: Sep 16 07:49PM +0200 On 09/16/14, Chris Vine wrote: >> others may not be able to make a useful contribution. Instead of >> telling you that you are a little bit off-topic here, they chose to >> bash you. Don't take it personally. [snip] > No question was being asked, such as, > "would this be a good compiler to buy", which would be on topic. [snip] Just as I suspected. [snip] > with such a compiler in 2014 is bizarre. But I think it was the > pointlessness rather than the bizarreness which attracted the attention > (rightly in my view). I wrote 150KLoc with VC6.0, and I only switched to VC2008 because of the Remote Debugging feature. VC6.0 was perfectly fine for the subset of features I was using. I daresay that VC6.0 would be fine for the majority of C++ programmers as well. There is probably only a thin elite that needs to stand C++ on its hind legs. Naturally, this elite also provides most contributors in this group (after all, if you are good at something, why shouldn't you share your knowledge with other people). Sadly, the same elite seems to resent the fact that some people don't share their enthusiasm about the latest C++ features. Still, I think that Rick made a very important point: If the C++ toolset for your particular platform degrades in performance/usability, you will cease using it, no matter how much the language has evolved (the Ada95 language may be way superior to C++, but it has only a small community and few tools). This leads to an interesting question: What would happen when the C++ standard committee approved of some super fancy feature that would make the C++ compilation process so complicated that most compiler vendors could only provide super slow compilation. That would effectively kill C++, even though it is only a quality-of-implementation issue. In the case of Visual Studio this is partially the case: Even though much of the sluggishness of VC 2008 probably stems from the slowness of the underlying DotNet technology, much of it can surely be attributed to the stricter adherence to the C++ standard. IMHO, the issue that has been raised by Rick should not be underestimated. A lot of scripting languages thrive in the area of GUI development, simply because of the mentioned edit-and-continue feature (which is inherently easier to achive in simpler languages). This leads to more and more people switching away from C++ if the project involves GUI because the C++ tools are too cumbersome for GUI development. This will lead to fewer and fewer people using C++ (or restrict the usage of C++ to computationally expensive parts of the application). This could be the beginning of the end of C++. Regards, Stuart |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Sep 16 06:11PM >cease using it, no matter how much the language has evolved (the Ada95 >language may be way superior to C++, but it has only a small community >and few tools). I think you underestimate the number of C++ programmers that don't use fancy IDE's. >the C++ compilation process so complicated that most compiler vendors >could only provide super slow compilation. That would effectively kill >C++, even though it is only a quality-of-implementation issue. Doubtful, very doubtful. Most programmers at CPOE don't bother with IDE's and they're very productive. That applies to embedded developers (a lot of C++ runs on embedded devices such as network switches, core routers, etc). Most chip development uses C++ (along with system C) for simulation, tools et. alia. No IDE necessary or useful (targetting non-windows environments). |
| Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>: Sep 16 08:26PM +0200 On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:10:37 +0100 > > B) Logical nonsense > It isn't nonsense mate: humans evolved ergo there was no *first* > human. I meant idea that there was first human is logical nonsense. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 16 07:27PM +0100 On 16/09/2014 18:40, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > continue. > An insignificant thing to many, but my life was never the same thereafter. > My eyes had been opened and I saw ... possibilities. I have never used "edit and continue" and probably never will: it just doesn't seem that useful to me. /Flibble |
| drew@furrfu.invalid (Drew Lawson): Sep 16 06:30PM In article <46WdnVFy4_xm84XJnZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com> >> A) There are evidences for it >> B) Logical nonsense >It isn't nonsense mate: humans evolved ergo there was no *first* human. I would think that this is blindingly obvious, but you seem to need to have it pointed out: You are addressing the first two chapters of Genesis, not the entirety of the OT. And since some of the OT is delivery of rules/laws, I don't know what it even means to say, "The entire Old Testament is false." If you're going to continue, at least try to make sense. I am of the firm belief that the OT is not valid C++. -- Drew Lawson | And to those who lack the courage | And say it's dangerous to try | Well they just don't know | That love eternal will not be denied |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 16 11:32AM -0700 On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:12:09 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote: > I think you underestimate the number of C++ programmers that don't > use fancy IDE's. The IDEs certainly aren't necessary, but an integrated IDE can add many benefits a traditional coding model can't when source files are edited in isolation. In VS there is the concept of a Project, and in later versions, a Solution. The project can contain source files related to a particular subset, and the solution contains multiple projects which relate to some larger thing. Having everything available internally allows for refactoring, for example, whereby the IDE is able to use compiler-tools, or add in its own for syntax parsing, to determine context of variable usage and scope in the editor. This allows all instances of a particular symbol to be renamed, refactored, etc., automatically through the use of the assistance tools. In Visual Studio, I also like the integrated debugger. It buries every other debugger I've seen in Linux by an order of magnitude. It is faster, supports more Windows, offers intuitive things like "Autos" which shows variables related to the nearby source lines, and much more. IDEs aren't for everybody. I don't even always use them. But, they do allow one to enter a particular tool, while also entering a particular mindset, and to proceed and do their work within that envelope, allowing for their personal productivity to be whatever it is within the tool, compared to whatever it might be without the tool. For Windows ... VS is a nearly perfect IDE and Debugger combination. The only features I'd like to see done a little better are multi-process debugging, and multi-thread-within-a-process debugging. Right now we must run multiple instances, or attach to multiple processes, and that's sometimes too much to easily wield inside of a single framework. It would be better to have that layer abstracted to allow ad hoc side-by-side arrangements within the single debugger environment. At least that's been my experience. Your mileage obviously varies. :-) Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 16 07:35PM +0100 On 16/09/2014 19:30, Drew Lawson wrote: > is delivery of rules/laws, I don't know what it even means to say, > "The entire Old Testament is false." > If you're going to continue, at least try to make sense. I am making perfect sense mate: if Adam didn't exist then neither did those that the OT claimed were descended from him including Abraham and Moses: if Adam never existed then the entire OT is indeed false. /Flibble |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 16 11:19AM -0700 Wow. I try to apologize and you refer me to an offensive video? Full Retard? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with developmentally disabled people. They do not deserve to be called "retards" and never have been. After browsing through a number of threads here, it seems that arguing about compilers and evolution (?) is rather common. And, many of you seem to enjoy that. OK, I get it now. Have a nice day. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 16 11:25AM -0700 On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:19:36 PM UTC-4, Robert Hutchings wrote: > After browsing through a number of threads here, it seems that arguing > about compilers and evolution (?) is rather common. It seems that for many arguing alone is the common theme. I'm not sure the topic matters all that much. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| MikeCopeland <mrc2323@cox.net>: Sep 16 09:15AM -0700 I am getting an Unresolved External Symbol compiler error (in VS2013 Express) that I cannot understand. In a common .h file, I have the following declaration: template <class T> string setwLeft(int width, T data); // format w/left & width template <class T> string setwRight(int width, T data); // format w/right & width In its .cpp file, I have defined both functions: template <class T> string setwLeft(int width, T data) // format w/left & width { ostringstream oss; oss << left << setw(width) << data; return oss.str(); } template <class T> string setwRight(int width, T data) // format w/right & width { ostringstream oss; oss << right << setw(width) << data; return oss.str(); } In my main .cpp files, I reference and use "setwLeft" frequently, but references to "setwRight" produce the compiler error. What am I doing wrong? TIA --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Sep 16 11:50AM -0500 MikeCopeland <mrc2323@cox.net> wrote in > I am getting an Unresolved External Symbol compiler error (in > VS2013 This is a linker error, not a compiler error. > Express) that I cannot understand. In a common .h file, I have the > following declaration: > template <class T> [...] > In its .cpp file, I have defined both functions: See http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq/templates-defn-vs-decl.html Cheers Paavo |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Sep 16 04:50PM > In my main .cpp files, I reference and use "setwLeft" frequently, but >references to "setwRight" produce the compiler error. What am I doing >wrong? TIA http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq/separate-template-fn-defn-from-decl.html |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 16 10:34AM +0200 On 15/09/14 18:05, Robert Hutchings wrote: > Wow. I daresay I won't be posting in this group of super-experts > again. Please pardon my ignorance and stupidity. I will take 100 > lashes later today... You can take your 100 lashes for posting to a newsgroup without understanding Usenet or its conventions. Please get yourself a proper newsreader, and learn to quote correctly and post correctly. You'll find it is far easier to hold a conversation. I don't think anyone here has been trying to be rude or unhelpful - but when you ask a silly question, you get a silly answer. And your question /was/ silly, as you would have found out with a couple of minutes googling or looking on Wikipedia. Those posters (including myself) who have tried to give you a little more information have made it clear that C++ is not particularly relevant to HFT. David |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment