| 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) - 8 Updates
- printing elements of stack - 3 Updates
- "Why Java and C++ developers should sleep well at night" - 2 Updates
- "The C++14 Standard: What You Need to Know" - 2 Updates
- I have "inherited" some C++ code.... - 10 Updates
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 17 08:49PM +0100 On 17/09/2014 20:05, Dombo wrote: > 15 years as of yet have never had a need for it. My experience is that > thinking things through in advance leads to better results in less time > than the trail-and-error development style. +1 |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 17 02:49PM -0500 On 9/17/2014 11:39 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > It falsfies all of it; none of Adam's descendents as described in the OT > existed. > /Flibble So, what was your argument that proved Adam didn't exist again? Simply because evolution occurs? Why can't evolution occur and Adam exist? You just keep saying Adam evolved rather than was created, but you haven't argued it. Even if we are to accept that evolution occurs in the way that you describe it, there is no reason there that Adam could not exist. If you'd like to argue from the year count going through the family trees listed in the O.T. there are several arguments explaining that as well. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 17 12:49PM -0700 On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 3:04:04 PM UTC-4, Dombo wrote: > Though I have worked with IDE's that support edit-and-continue for over > 15 years as of yet have never had a need for it. I know of several developers who also find no value whatsoever in edit- and-continue. Each developer finds value in different tools. It what makes it so exciting and interesting to work alongside others. :-) > My experience is that > thinking things through in advance leads to better results in > less time than the trail-and-error development style. I doubt that everyone who uses edit-and-continue follows a trial-and- error development style, or that everyone at Apple who introduced fix-and-continue uses a trial-and-error development style. I know at least I don't ... so that's one. :-) Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 17 08:52PM +0100 On 17/09/2014 20:49, Christopher Pisz wrote: > Simply because evolution occurs? > Why can't evolution occur and Adam exist? You just keep saying Adam > evolved rather than was created, but you haven't argued it. Even if we You are really fucking dense aren't you? I never said Adam evolved; I said Adam never fucking existed. > are to accept that evolution occurs in the way that you describe it, > there is no reason there that Adam could not exist. According to the OT Adam was the FIRST human; according to evolution there was no FIRST human. > If you'd like to argue from the year count going through the family > trees listed in the O.T. there are several arguments explaining that as > well. Adam never existed and neither did any of his descendents. The OT is a complete fiction. /Flibble |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 17 08:55PM +0100 On 17/09/2014 20:49, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > error development style, or that everyone at Apple who introduced > fix-and-continue uses a trial-and-error development style. I know > at least I don't ... so that's one. :-) Your development style of using a debugger to design code is fucking trial and error mate. People who use trial and error to design things line by line don't have a clue basically; prototyping/refactoring is a valid design method however. /Flibble |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 17 03:40PM -0500 On 9/17/2014 2:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> Why can't evolution occur and Adam exist? You just keep saying Adam >> evolved rather than was created, but you haven't argued it. > You are really fucking dense aren't you? My density is ~1.0 g/cm^3, so no, not particularly. > I never said Adam evolved; I said Adam never fucking existed. Fibble Sausages has spoken, we are all to accept his word as truth. All hail Fibble Sausages. >> Even if we are to accept that evolution occurs in the way that you describe it, >> there is no reason there that Adam could not exist. > according to evolution there was no FIRST human. According to Evolution? Evolution speaks not and has ideas? Whose version of evolution? Which textbook? There are quite a few different versions of what evolution is out there. Is this Fibble Sausages version of evolution? Other people have already pointed it out, but how are there humans at all exactly, if there was never a first human? Did a group of humans teleport here simultaneous from nothingness? Even if humans grew from an ectoplasmic goo, surely someone reached the point of scientific classifications before the others. Did a bunch of goo pods all cross the finish line at once? >> well. > Adam never existed and neither did any of his descendents. The OT is a > complete fiction. Yes, you keep saying that, but why should we believe you exactly? |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 17 10:48PM +0100 On 17/09/2014 21:40, Christopher Pisz wrote: >> I never said Adam evolved; I said Adam never fucking existed. > Fibble Sausages has spoken, we are all to accept his word as truth. All > hail Fibble Sausages. The truth comes from the scientific evidence for evolution: evolution is a fact and Adam is a myth. > Whose version of evolution? Which textbook? There are quite a few > different versions of what evolution is out there. Is this Fibble > Sausages version of evolution? According to the accepted theory of evolution humans EVOLVED; evolution is a gradual process: there wasn't suddenly a first human when before there were no humans. > ectoplasmic goo, surely someone reached the point of scientific > classifications before the others. Did a bunch of goo pods all cross the > finish line at once? Psychosis. >> Adam never existed and neither did any of his descendents. The OT is a >> complete fiction. > Yes, you keep saying that, but why should we believe you exactly? "we" or "I" mate? Because you would be foolish to ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution. /Flibble |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 17 04:58PM -0500 >>>> On 9/17/2014 11:39 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > Because you would be foolish to ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution. > /Flibble The thing of it is, I haven't seen any at all, unless you count the number of people saying things like, "strong evidence" and "overwhelming evidence", but I myself have never in my entire lifetime actually seen any evidence, and never will, because it is not observable. |
| "Charles J. Daniels" <chajadan@gmail.com>: Sep 17 01:16PM -0700 On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 3:34:58 AM UTC-7, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > -- > // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . > \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . You could pop a stack and push the elements onto a new stack after printing them. They'd be "upside-down" but when you're done you could pop them off back onto the original stack. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 17 01:22PM -0700 On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:38:34 AM UTC-4, arnuld wrote: > WANT: print stack elements > PROBLEM: No way to print > Is there no way to print stack elements without pop()-ing them out ? The stack stores memory somewhere. Generate the assembly and determine how it's being accessed through the standard C++ mechanisms. You can then iterate through the same memory manually using a pointer of some kind. In the alternative, create your own stack system using Christian's suggestion. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Scott Neugroschl <no.spam@its.invalid>: Sep 17 02:54PM -0700 On 9/17/2014 1:22 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > kind. > In the alternative, create your own stack system using Christian's > suggestion. Alternatively, derive from std::stack<> using private inheritance. The underlying container in std::stack is protected. |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Sep 17 08:12PM >Don't people go to search engines when they have a problem? And wouldn't >this stat reflect more how hard it is to work with any given language >than with its overall popularity? :-) It likely has little to do with either popularity or difficulty. It's a completely bogus measurement of popularity or usage statistics. Java is doing well because of Tomcat, J2EE and the ease with which websites can be implemented using Java. |
| David Harmon <source@netcom.com>: Sep 17 02:51PM -0700 On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:49:56 -0700 (PDT) in comp.lang.c++, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote, >I'm not surprised C++ is doing well, but can't explain >Java's doing well. For one thing, it is almost mandatory on Android. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 17 12:35PM -0700 On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 3:04:34 PM UTC-4, Paavo Helde wrote: > The module system support for C++ is underway: [url didn't work] > It's long overdue, but will still probably be finished before your > compiler is ready ;-) Probably so. It is a lot of work to write an IDE, compiler, and everything in-between. I am handicapped further in that I am writing mine after a regular 50+ hour work week. It has been the most difficult thing I've ever undertaken (for a software project), mainly because I am also writing everything entirely from the ground up so it is all founded upon a baseline Christian effort, one designed from its very inception to be an offering in love of the fruits of the skills, knowledge, talents, and abilities the Lord first gave me, and anyone else who wants to come on board and help (so far it's just me and one man from Columbia, though he's not a C/C++ developer, just an XBASE developer). It is very hard work to proceed due to the type of work itself. And the difficulty in my effort is multiplied by staunch opposition to all such offerings (my project being offered up explicitly in the name of Jesus Christ, and being written and given because of Him and the way He first reached out to me). It is like setting roadblocks at every point where you would otherwise receive help were the project given over to monetary profit, or some other worldly purpose. As it is, being a solely offering-unto-the-Lord project, no one will get near it ... and I find myself working alone in an ongoing manner. It is routinely hurtful to be engaged in a project like this, continuing to press ahead offering everything that is of the very best within yourself unto others for free, only to have them not only reject your offering because of its foundations, bu to reject you personally, and to unleash negativity in all its various forms toward you. It is nothing less than a continuous test of character. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Sep 17 09:38PM On Wed, 2014-09-17, Paavo Helde wrote: >> I think this is potentially very dangerous. Suppose I meant to type >> 1.4f but forgot the f > This feature is not obligatory, one is not forced to use it. And C++ was never about protecting programmers from themselves. Featured get added because they can be used, not because they cannot be misused. (But I note that you don't seem to disagree with each other.) /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Sep 17 02:21PM -0500 Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com> wrote in > My manager gave me this code today, and I am not sure understand the > Patterns code. I know ABOUT design patterns (GoF, etc), but has > anyone seen code like this before? Not sure what exactly you do not understand. You only showed Instrument code, not Patterns code (which is presumably a namespace or another class somewhere else). Also, it looks like you have truncated the example and kept only least interesting parts. The code is using superfluent 'inline' keywords and does not use 'virtual' or 'override' keywords although it allegedly should override some virtual functions ("It implements the Observable interface"). I suggest first to delete the 'inline' keywords and add 'override' keywords where appropriate, then it ought to become a bit clearer. hth Paavo |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 17 12:27PM -0700 OK, thank you Paavo! |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 18 07:41AM +1200 Robert Hutchings wrote: > Abstract Instrument class > This class is purely abstract and defines the interface of concrete instruments > which will be derived from this one. It implements the Observable interface How can something be "purely abstract" and implement an interface? -- Ian Collins |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 17 12:48PM -0700 I am not sure Ian. My boss did not give me enough of the code-base (headers and/or other .cpp files). I understand the Observer design pattern, but, as you say, there are some questionable statements in this code... |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 18 07:50AM +1200 Robert Hutchings wrote: > (headers and/or other .cpp files). I understand the Observer design > pattern, but, as you say, there are some questionable statements in > this code... Please learn how to quote! -- Ian Collins |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Sep 17 03:24PM -0500 Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com> wrote in > My boss did not give me enough of the code-base > (headers and/or other .cpp files). So ... why don't you check them out from the code repository? Cheers Paavo |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 17 01:32PM -0700 > Please learn how to quote! OK, sorry. |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 17 01:36PM -0700 > So ... why don't you check them out from the code repository? Yes, I will. I work in a, shall we say, "controlled" environment, so I will have to "request" additional code from our Version Control Admin.... |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Sep 17 03:46PM -0500 Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com> wrote in > Yes, I will. I work in a, shall we say, "controlled" environment, so I > will have to "request" additional code from our Version Control > Admin.... Wow! I foresee many inspiring stories for http://thedailywtf.com Cheers Paavo |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 17 01:52PM -0700 > Wow! I foresee many inspiring stories for http://thedailywtf.com LOL. WELL, you guys were right. C++ is NOT fast enough for "Ultra-HFT", in which FGPA modules are co-located with the exchanges. Now I am being asked to learn Verilog using a FGPA simulator...<argh> |
| 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