- C++ Middleware Writer - 16 Updates
- Arrays of strings - 2 Updates
- what are Lambda(s)? and Why use them? - 5 Updates
- "Why I don't spend time with Modern C++ anymore" by Henrique Bucher - 2 Updates
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: May 20 01:25AM +0200 On 20.05.2016 00:55, Mr Flibble wrote: > Utter bullshit mate. Evolution is BOTH fact and theory. As evolution is > a fact we know humans evolved but according to Genesis Adam had no > parents so yes evolution being a fact does prove that Genesis is a fiction. Both the evolution hypothesis and Genesis are utterly wrong. Before there was soil, or sky, or any green thing, there was only the gaping abyss of Ginnungagap. This chaos of perfect silence and darkness lay between the homeland of elemental fire, Muspelheim, and the homeland of elemental ice, Niflheim. Frost from Niflheim and billowing flames from Muspelheim crept toward each other until they met in Ginnungagap. Amid the hissing and sputtering, the fire melted the ice, and the drops formed themselves into Ymir, the first of the godlike giants. Ymir was a hermaphrodite and could reproduce asexually; when he sweated, more giants were born. As the frost continued to melt, a cow, Audhumbla, emerged from it. She nourished Ymir with her milk, and she, in turn, was nourished by salt-licks in the ice. Her licks slowly uncovered Buri, the first of the Aesir tribe of gods. Buri had a son named Bor, who married Bestla, the daughter of the giant Bolthorn. The half-god, half-giant children of Bor and Bestla were Odin, who became the chief of the Aesir gods, and his two brothers, Vili and Ve. Odin and his brothers slew Ymir and set about constructing the world from his corpse. They fashioned the oceans from his blood, the soil from his skin and muscles, vegetation from his hair, clouds from his brains, and the sky from his skull. Four dwarves, corresponding to the four cardinal points, held Ymir's skull aloft above the earth. In one version of reality the gods eventually formed the first man and woman, Ask and Embla, from two tree trunks, and built a fence around their dwelling-place, Midgard, to protect them from the giants. And incidentally, one woman I know has a son named Ask, and she correspondingly named her café-to-be, Embla. Unfortunately, the economics didn't work out for the café. Cheers!, - Alf |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 19 08:39PM -0400 On 5/19/2016 5:43 PM, David Brown wrote: > the book is fictional until proved to be fact (or at the very least, > until there is some independent corroborating evidence for at least some > of the stories in the book). Your claim, not mine. There is corroborating evidence of many of the stories in the book. But you're too close minded to look at them. > is - to my knowledge - no independent proof in any written documents or > archaeology. I don't think there is even any evidence for significant > Israelite presence in ancient Egypt, as slaves or otherwise. Your knowledge is sadly lacking. For instance, there is archaelogical evidence of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. As well as many other stories. > is fictional - merely that if you want to believe it to be "true" in any > sense, then you do so on faith and not due to rational thought or > reasoning. And the insistence that is fiction despite evidence to the contrary is a sure sign of a closed mind. >> typical of closed-minded idiots. > It is good to keep an open mind - but not so open that your brains > dribble out. Then you should open your mind. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 19 08:41PM -0400 On 5/19/2016 6:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > a fact we know humans evolved but according to Genesis Adam had no > parents so yes evolution being a fact does prove that Genesis is a fiction. > /Flibble No, evolution has NEVER been called a "Fact" by any rational scientist. Is a theory - nothing more, nothing less. And if Adam never had parents is false, then the human race must have existed since before the beginning of the universe. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 20 01:56AM +0100 On 20/05/2016 01:41, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> /Flibble > No, evolution has NEVER been called a "Fact" by any rational scientist. > Is a theory - nothing more, nothing less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory > And if Adam never had parents is false, then the human race must have > existed since before the beginning of the universe. Nonsense; the problem here is your fractal wrongness. /Flibble |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 19 09:43PM -0400 On 5/19/2016 8:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> No, evolution has NEVER been called a "Fact" by any rational scientist. >> Is a theory - nothing more, nothing less. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory There is truth, and there is Wikipedia. Sometimes they are the same. But not often. Show me a claim by a respected publication. >> existed since before the beginning of the universe. > Nonsense; the problem here is your fractal wrongness. > /Flibble Nope. Either mankind had a start, which means someone didn't have parents, or mankind existed forever. Which is it? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 20 03:13AM +0100 On 20/05/2016 02:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > There is truth, and there is Wikipedia. Sometimes they are the same. > But not often. > Show me a claim by a respected publication. Do your own research (which doesn't mean going to fucktarded American Christian creationist websites). > Nope. Either mankind had a start, which means someone didn't have > parents, or mankind existed forever. Which is it? Mankind didn't have a start (there was no first human) instead humans EVOLVED. /Flibble |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 19 10:23PM -0400 On 5/19/2016 10:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> Show me a claim by a respected publication. > Do your own research (which doesn't mean going to fucktarded American > Christian creationist websites). You made the claim. It's up to you to prove it. But you can't, so you start with the ad hominem attacks. How like the troll you are. > Mankind didn't have a start (there was no first human) instead humans > EVOLVED. > /Flibble So if there was no first human, then there can be no humans. Or humans existed from before the beginning of the universe. Which one was it? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: May 19 08:01PM -0700 On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:55:41 PM UTC-5, Leigh, please don't swear here. Brian |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 19 11:29PM -0400 > On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:55:41 PM UTC-5, > Leigh, please don't swear here. > Brian That's just the way idiots and trolls are. They're too stupid to carry on an intelligent conversation, so they have to resort to gratuitous swearing and ad hominem attacks. The funny thing is - they think it makes them look smart or important. But it has just the opposite effect. You're much better off just ignoring it. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 20 09:22AM +0200 On 20/05/16 00:55, Mr Flibble wrote: > Utter bullshit mate. Evolution is BOTH fact and theory. As evolution is > a fact we know humans evolved but according to Genesis Adam had no > parents so yes evolution being a fact does prove that Genesis is a fiction. I don't think you understand what the word "theory" means - at least not in the sense of "scientific theory". In science, one does not prove "facts". One forms a /theory/. That means the idea needs very strong evidence, a consistent and logical rational basis, the ability to form predictions that can be tested, and criteria by which the theory can be disproved. Calling evolution a "theory" is an extremely strong statement. It puts evolution on a par with the "theory of gravity" - scientists are as sure that evolution works as they are that a dropped brick will fall to the ground. But gravity is not a "fact", and nor is evolution - they are both strong theories that will remain our best explanation for their respective effects unless and until a better theory is developed. And if you actually read Genesis (or at least its Wikipedia summary), you will find that the two stories of creation are only very minor parts at the beginning of the book. Evolution is totally unrelated to all the other parts of the book - you cannot "prove" that Genesis is all fiction merely by finding flaws in one part of it. Evolution, along with archaeological and palaeontological evidence, and of course astronomy, physics, etc., provides a vastly more rational explanation of the beginning of the world and its inhabitants. But it does not /prove/ or /disprove/ anything. If you believe in an omniscient being sitting in the sky and pulling all the strings, then there is a consistent (stupid, but consistent) alternative explanation - God planted all the evidence for evolution and cosmology when he created the earth. You cannot use science to disprove God or any other religious beliefs - you can only use science to disprove or re-enforce other scientific concepts. Religion is not science - it is fundamentally irrational, and does not play by the same rules. You can use science to say that you don't /need/ religion, and you don't need or want any supernatural or superstitious beliefs to explain the world around us, or in order to live your life. But logical thinking and rational explanations will not change the minds of people who think Genesis is "literally true". After all, there are enough inconsistencies in the text itself to show it cannot all be "true" - if that doesn't dampen their enthusiasm, why do you think external evidence would do so? So repeatedly claiming "evolution disproves God" is as pointless as repeatedly asking people to "please don't swear here". Both show an impressive stubbornness and lack of thought. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 20 09:32AM +0200 On 20/05/16 01:25, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > In one version of reality the gods eventually formed the first man and > woman, Ask and Embla, from two tree trunks, and built a fence around > their dwelling-place, Midgard, to protect them from the giants. They should teach this in KRLE (Norwegian religious education) in schools. The kids would find it far more exciting than most of the other creation myths (I know my kids did when I read Norse mythology bed-time stories. The creation of the world was particularly appealing!) |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 20 09:37AM +0200 On 20/05/16 04:23, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 5/19/2016 10:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On 20/05/2016 02:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote: <snip> > So if there was no first human, then there can be no humans. Or humans > existed from before the beginning of the universe. > Which one was it? What was your first thought? Give me /proof/ of /exactly/ what your first thought was. If you can't tell me which thought was first, how can you claim to be having thoughts now. Unless you have existed forever, and have had thoughts all that time, the only logical assumption, based on your above "logic", is that you are completely thoughtless. Alternatively, you might like to do some reading about the concept of "emergence". Here's a link to get you started: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence> |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 20 09:57AM +0200 On 20/05/16 02:39, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> until there is some independent corroborating evidence for at least some >> of the stories in the book). > Your claim, not mine. Check the attributions - /I/ did not claim Genesis was fictional. (I /do/ think it is basically fictional, but that is because it is inconsistent with large masses of known evidence and scientific understanding, and because there is nothing to corroborate the majority of the stories in the book. I do /not/ claim to be able to "disprove" the book, however.) > There is corroborating evidence of many of the > stories in the book. But you're too close minded to look at them. No, I am interested. I have never come across any evidence, or reliable references to evidence, that suggest the stories in Genesis are true. I am happy to accept that at least some parts have some basis in truth - it is unlikely to be pure fiction. But the "big" issues, such as creation, the Ark, the whole Egypt expedition and miraculous escape, the lifetimes of the patriarchs, etc., have no serious evidence of which I am aware. If you have links that show reasonable evidence, I would be curious to have a look. But I am not interested in something that shows "there was a big flood here around 4000 BC" - it would have to show "there was a world-spanning flood with waters covering most of the world's land masses after extremely heavy rainfall around 4000 BC". >> Israelite presence in ancient Egypt, as slaves or otherwise. > Your knowledge is sadly lacking. For instance, there is archaelogical > evidence of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. As well as many other stories. No, there is archaeological evidence that there were some ancient cities that fit reasonably well with the description of these cities in the Bible. As I have said before, I don't think that just because something is mentioned in Genesis means that it is definitely fictional - it seems reasonable that the story refers to real cities. But the point of the story in Genesis is not that there happened to be a couple of cities near the Dead Sea - it is that the cities were full of corruption, and that God destroyed them because of that. There is /no/ evidence for that. >> reasoning. > And the insistence that is fiction despite evidence to the contrary is a > sure sign of a closed mind. Again, show me some evidence. I will judge how much credibility I give that evidence. And again, I do not think there is a black-and-white choice between "all fact" and "all fiction". Just as evolution does not "disprove" that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, so would evidence of significant Jewish slavery in Egypt be unrelated to the truth or fiction of the garden of Eden. |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 20 09:27AM -0400 On 5/20/2016 3:37 AM, David Brown wrote: > forever, and have had thoughts all that time, the only logical > assumption, based on your above "logic", is that you are completely > thoughtless. I don't need to give "proof" of my first thought. I only have to acknowledge I had a first thought. Just as I am not asking you to prove there was a first man. Only to acknowledge there was a first man. > Alternatively, you might like to do some reading about the concept of > "emergence". Here's a link to get you started: > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence> Which does not change anything. Not that Wikipedia is at all a reliable resource, but that's beside the point. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 20 09:34AM -0400 On 5/20/2016 3:57 AM, David Brown wrote: > understanding, and because there is nothing to corroborate the majority > of the stories in the book. I do /not/ claim to be able to "disprove" > the book, however.) Sorry, you did claim the book was fictional, by your attributions. > creation, the Ark, the whole Egypt expedition and miraculous escape, the > lifetimes of the patriarchs, etc., have no serious evidence of which I > am aware. Make up your mind. At first you claimed there was no evidence that any of the stories in Genesis were anything but fiction. Now you're trying to pick and chose what you want to believe and what you don't. But you've done that before - trying to change the rules when proven wrong. > a big flood here around 4000 BC" - it would have to show "there was a > world-spanning flood with waters covering most of the world's land > masses after extremely heavy rainfall around 4000 BC". Yes, there is evidence there was a big flood in that time frame - covering the world as the ancients knew it at the time. > story in Genesis is not that there happened to be a couple of cities > near the Dead Sea - it is that the cities were full of corruption, and > that God destroyed them because of that. There is /no/ evidence for that. Wrong again. You need to be studying up on the archaeology before making such stupid claims. You only show your ignorance - and closed mindedness. > "disprove" that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, so would evidence > of significant Jewish slavery in Egypt be unrelated to the truth or > fiction of the garden of Eden. I suggest you look into the archaeological studies in that area of the world - especially in the last 40 years or so. >>> It is good to keep an open mind - but not so open that your brains >>> dribble out. >> Then you should open your mind. Yes, you really should. But then that's also like you - rather than admit you might be wrong, you always try to blame the other person. I'm the one who admits there are possibilities to the truth in Genesis. You're the one who claims otherwise. The latter is the sign of a closed mind. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 20 04:07PM +0200 On 20/05/16 15:27, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > I don't need to give "proof" of my first thought. I only have to > acknowledge I had a first thought. Just as I am not asking you to prove > there was a first man. Only to acknowledge there was a first man. Neither you (or anyone else) had a "first" thought. The process is emergent. The same covers a huge variety of other processes. So no, I do not acknowledge that there was a "first man". The whole idea is a common mistake made by people who do not understand emergence, and try to use black-and-white definitions in an attempt to justify claiming that a creation myth is realistic. There was no "first man". You never had a "first thought". There is no such thing as a "smallest drop of water". You cannot have "the palest shade of blue". There is no "smallest real number greater than zero". There was no single point of creation of the earth, nor a single point when life emerged (and no first lifeform). There is no point at which a piece of string stops being "short" and becomes "long". These things are all gradual transitions. Well to one side of the transitions and changes, one can say "this is definitely water" or "this is definitely a collection of water molecules that is too small to have the properties we associate with water". But there are no fixed boundaries. > Which does not change anything. Not that Wikipedia is at all a reliable > resource, but that's beside the point. You are fond of dismissing Wikipedia as "unreliable" and "unauthoritative", yet rarely do you give any specific complaints or alternative references. There is plenty on Wikipedia that is questionable, but also plenty that is very good - just like many other sources. |
| Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: May 19 08:22PM -0400 On 5/19/2016 6:01 PM, Paul wrote: > I think that std::string array[4]; defines array as an array of 4 empty strings. However, I can't justify this assertion (other than by experimenting). For example, int intArray[4]; does not result in an array of four zeroes even though int() evaluates as 0. So the fact that the std::string default constructor results in an empty string doesn't tell me what happens in the case of an array. > Could anyone enlighten me? Open the Standard, section 12.6, paragraph 3. "When an array of class objects is initialized (either explicitly or implicitly) and the elements are initialized by constructor, the constructor shall be called for each element of the array, following the subscript order;..." V -- I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): May 20 01:05PM >efault constructor results in an empty string doesn't tell me what happens = >in the case of an array. >Could anyone enlighten me? int intArray[4] is a C construct and the C initialization rules apply. Static (or file-scope) variables are initialized to zero at program load time. Stack (function scope) variables are uninitialized and the contents are undefined until assigned. |
| gdotone@gmail.com: May 19 05:50PM -0700 What are Lambda(s)? and Why use them? |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: May 20 03:12AM +0200 > What are Lambda(s)? and Why use them? A lambda expression creates and calls an instance of an automatically generated class that has an operator(). So it's like an anonymous function defined on the spot. The generated class can capture values and references from the context, but by default it doesn't. The name "lambda" is commonly used for anonymous functions in programming, regardless of the programming language, and stems no doubt from Church's ¹"lambda calculus" that the Lisp language was based on. For details of the C++ lambda see the discussion over at ²cppreference.com. × × × Instead of asking simple factual questions in clc++, better ask them over at Stack Overflow. Stack Overflow is Q&A site, catering to that kind of question. clc++ is a discussion group, and there isn't much discussion in a simple factual question unless someone posts a horribly wrong answer and insists it is correct. × × × Questions that can be discussed are however better asked here than on SO. That's because SO is actively designed to not discourage discussions. For example, one can't post formatted code in SO comments, and SO moderators regularly tidy up discussion threads with often less than perfect value judgment, or even recognition of what constitutes necessary context for the comments left behind. Cheers & hth., - Alf ¹ <url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus> ² <url: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/lambda> |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: May 20 03:14AM +0200 On 20.05.2016 03:12, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > ... Sorry, an extraneous "not" wormed its way into the text. - Alf |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 19 09:41PM -0400 On 5/19/2016 9:12 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: <snip> > Instead of asking simple factual questions in clc++, better ask them > over at Stack Overflow. I disagree. This is a perfectly good place to ask a "simple factual question". But this is also more than a "simple factual question". > Stack Overflow is Q&A site, catering to that kind of question. It's OK for a website. But I much prefer usenet with a real news reader. > clc++ is a discussion group, and there isn't much discussion in a simple > factual question unless someone posts a horribly wrong answer and > insists it is correct. No, it is a usenet newsgroup. <snip> -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>: May 20 10:56AM +0100 > A lambda expression creates and calls an instance of an automatically > generated class that has an operator(). So it's like an anonymous > function defined on the spot. That "calls" might confuse some people. The lambda expression creates an anonymous function (or function-like object) but it (the newly created function) does not get called at that point. Maybe there was more there once and an edit left it standing -- "... creates and calls the constructor for ...". (Obviously a lambda expression *can* be part of a larger function call expression in which case it *will* be called immediately after its creation, but it's not the lambda expression doing the calling.) <snip> -- Ben. |
| Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com>: May 19 08:16PM -0500 "Why I don't spend time with Modern C++ anymore" by Henrique Bucher https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-i-dont-spend-time-modern-c-anymore-henrique-bucher-phd Interesting and true. We just transitioned from Visual C++ 2005 to Visual C++ 2015. Much improved. And way slower, especially the linker! Lynn |
| Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org>: May 20 10:58AM +0200 On 20.05.16 03.16, Lynn McGuire wrote: > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-i-dont-spend-time-modern-c-anymore-henrique-bucher-phd > Interesting and true. We just transitioned from Visual C++ 2005 to > Visual C++ 2015. Much improved. And way slower, especially the linker! Well, VC++ never have been the yardstick by which others are measured. I am still fine with C++. But I have to admit that I use some of the modern features carefully. It is still possibly to write very fast code with C++. You can wrap almost any hack by a safe class with almost no runtime overhead. At this point I disagree with the referenced article. On one side he complains the speed has decreased and we should move to VHDL at the best. On the other side he states that modern hardware is fast enough and we do no longer have to count clock cycles. So what's the message? OK, with templates there might have happened some over engineering. Variadics are neat. Perfect forwarding also. But it is not always a good advise to move anything to the compile time. The Java concept with type erasure has also its advantages. First of all it is fast at compile time and keeps the executables small, which yields to higher cache efficiency. I use this pattern quite often with C++. Basically a non template core (base class) with a template type safe wrapper. E.g. containers with smart pointer elements reduce to the same class this way. And lambdas (or partially functional programming in general) is always risky with respect to performance. It is very easy to end up with very complex common subexpressions that execute the same code over and over and which is not always obvious at the first glance. Fast code is only slightly different from amazingly inefficient code. But this is no property of C++. It is just a consequence of mixing procedural and OO code with functional code. In fact C#/LINQ shares exactly the same problem. If one wants to enter the 'functional world' effectively than the functions have to be declared to be as strictly functional. With lambdas this is for free as long as they do not contain closures. But as soon as you call any ordinary function from this code you are lost with the resulting sequence points and possible side effects. They introduce important restrictions to the optimizer. C++ offers the keyword constexpr which is quite close to the required constraint for functional programming. A constexpr expression tree has no sequence points at function calls and could be reordered by the compiler, e.g. do invariant code motion. But you must not call any non functional code. It's a pity that trivial functions like sin() cos() do not meet this constraint because of the useless errno C compatibility - although some platforms provide extensions that remove this dependency. Unfortunately constexpr is not originally intended for this purpose and has many constraints that that are more due to current implementations rather than due to the language itself. OK, with C++14 the situation significantly improved, but no more no less. I remember a very old C compiler from Inmos that had a side_effect_free attribute which exactly did this job. And in fact it had a great influence to the optimizer even in the old days (Inmos T805 Transputer). Marcel |
| 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