- C++ Middleware Writer - 13 Updates
- what are Lambda(s)? and Why use them? - 3 Updates
- "Why I don't spend time with Modern C++ anymore" by Henrique Bucher - 3 Updates
- Arrays of strings - 1 Update
- ostream - 2 Updates
- This newsgroup... - 1 Update
- Where do you want to go for eternity? - 2 Updates
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: May 19 10:13AM >> it's just not physically feasible. > What about the ships the Pilgrims used to escape from > Europe? Not even nearly the same size. Try to google up the largest wooden ship ever made. There just is a physical limit to how large a wooden ship can be. >> treatment because of your own religion and your own biases, and >> you are incapable of seeing it in a more level-headed context. > I'm following in the footsteps of people like William Bragg No. You believe the myth because you want to believe the myth. You are highly biased and refuse to even accept the idea that the myth is just that, a story. A fable. Mythology. Made up. The world is stock full of similar myths, both ancient and modern. There are, in fact, many myths that are significantly more belivable and physically possible than the ark one. Yet you don't accept any of them, and see them for what they are. Except for this one. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 19 05:46PM +0100 On 19/05/2016 14:31, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > Your mind is just as closed as his is. Don't be a twit. Noah's Ark is in the Book Of Genesis and we know Genesis is fictional because we know, among other things, that evolution is a fact. If anyone has a closed mind it is you mate. Try opening YOUR mind to SCIENTIFIC TRUTH. /Flibble |
| Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: May 20 11:51PM +0200 >> Brian, please don't proselytize here. > I think that's the same as "don't be happy here." > Happiness is fine here. Swearing isn't. That's only your view. For me, swearing is OK, but proselytizing isn't. Christian |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 20 04:55PM -0400 On 5/20/2016 2:46 PM, David Brown wrote: > exist, but there was no "first man". There was no transition where one > day there were ape-like humanoids, and the next day was born the first > man. The concept simply doesn't make sense. There still had to be one person who first fit the description of "man". That would be the first "man". > I guess there is little point in continuing this, since you seem > incapable or unwilling to read, and I am merely repeating myself. Oh, I'm willing to read, all right. But you're right - there is no reason to continue this. I am arguing with a closed mind. It's just as productive as teaching a pig to sing. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 19 11:43PM +0200 On 19/05/16 21:37, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> /Flibble > You claim that the Book of Genesis is fictional without any proof - and > then have the nerve to claim I have a closed mind? ROFLMAO! It is not up to anyone to prove that a particular book is fictional - 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). The claims in the Book of Genesis are extraordinary, to say the least. And extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. For Genesis, there 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. Of course, a complete lack of any evidence does not prove that Genesis 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 no, Mr. Flibble, the fact that evolution is a solid scientific theory with as strong a basis in evidence as the theory of gravity does not actually "prove that Genesis is fictional". It gives a far more sensible explanation for the origins of humanity, but you cannot /prove/ that God does not exist or that Bible literalists are wrong. They can always appeal to "God made it look that way", and your argument is void. So it is a reasonable rational assumption that Genesis is fictional - but it is not /proven/ to be. However, the onus is on believers to provide evidence that the book is non-fiction. > You obviously haven't read Genesis. That's for sure. But that's > typical of closed-minded idiots. It is good to keep an open mind - but not so open that your brains dribble out. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 19 11:55PM +0100 On 19/05/2016 22:43, David Brown wrote: > So it is a reasonable rational assumption that Genesis is fictional - > but it is not /proven/ to be. However, the onus is on believers to > provide evidence that the book is non-fiction. 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. /Flibble |
| 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 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 ================== |
| 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> |
| 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 ================== |
| 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 ================== |
| "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 ================== |
| "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> |
| Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: May 25 08:32AM +0200 Op 25-May-16 om 12:41 AM schreef Juha Nieminen: >> That is exactly the kind of object that I don't use for my small-systems >> compile-type-polymorphism programming style. > Why not? Why make your life more difficult than it needs to be? To make the executable code smaller and faster. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8sRQMx2qUw> Wouter "Objects? No thanks!" van Ooijen |
| Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: May 25 09:04AM +0200 Am 25.05.16 um 00:40 schrieb Juha Nieminen: >> change or even more > I don't think I have had *anything* I have ever done take 3 minutes > to compile, even after a clean. I can believe that if you only compile your own code. If you are hacking on a big project, rebuilding can take very long. Imagine patching OpenOffice. There are build distributions available with object files, so that you can start hacking on a source file and only need to recompile the changed bits, because a full build can take days. I haven't worked on OO myself, but one project of mine required building a large number of third-party modules. On Linux, the whole build takes < 5 minutes. The same using MinGW on Windows takes almost an hour, which is extremely annoying. Christian |
| 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 |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: May 20 12:51AM +0200 On 20.05.2016 00:01, Paul wrote: > 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? `int` is a built-in type, which is an example of a Plain Old Data type like in C, which has no specified default initialization. So, assuming your array is a local variable, with default initialization nothing happens. • C++11 §8.5/11: If no initializer is specified for an object, the object is default- initialized; ; if no initialization is performed, an object with automatic or dynamic storage duration has indeterminate value. • C++11 §8.5/6: To default-initialize an object of type T means: — if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) class type (Clause 9), the default constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible default constructor); — if T is an array type, each element is default-initialized; — otherwise, no initialization is performed. So, by the second dash of §8.5/6, each element of the `int` array is default-initialized, and by the third dash, since `int` is neither class type nor an array, no initialization is performed. And then by §8.5/11 again (now applied to array item) that leaves each item with an indeterminate value. `std::string` is a class type with a default constructor. Default initialization for an object of this type uses the default constructor, which gives you an empty string. This is the first dash of §8.5/6. × × × Things are different if the array is at namespace scope, because namespace scope variables are zero-initialized before anything else. × × × For a local variable you can get zero initialization by specifying value initialization, which reduces to call to default constructor or zero initialization depending on the type. E.g. like this: int ai[4] = {}; // Very zero'ish. Alternatively you can use a `std::vector` instead of a raw array: vector<int> vi( 4 ); // Also very zero'ish. This relies on the `std::vector` constructor to zero things. In contrast, for historical reasons (as `boost::array` for C++03) the `std::array` class has no defined constructor, and doesn't zero things unless you give an initializer. And so array<int, 4> argh; // Very indeterminate. … just gives indeterminate values. :( One might argue that this proves that the Boost route into standardization is problematic. While something is proven as part of Boost, the language evolves (with C++11 supporting list-initialization), changing the context, so that the Boost thing is now much less than an optimal solution. It's a proven design, but only for the previous incarnation of the language; the world is imprefect! Cheers & hth., - Alf |
| ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram): May 25 01:33AM >Three questions Two. >a) Any concerns/pitfalls surrounding use of ostream in an >embedded environment? An embedded microcontroller can have less than 100 Bytes of RAM or several GByte. >b) Is storage generated for the ostream method? When a method has parameters, their storage is part of the activation record of the method, but an optimizer might optimize away the whole method with parameters and all. |
| ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram): May 21 12:48AM >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. From a physicists point of view, this actually makes sense. Energy always comes from a difference of potentials, like a difference of temperatures (temperature being one of the potentials of thermodynamics). In normal life, fire is the hottest thing and ice is the coldest thing. So the difference of temperature between fire and ice is the largest possible difference in temperature one can express with common words. Thus, it corresponds to a very large difference of potentials which corresponds to a very large amount of energy. So they say in their words that in the beginning there was only a very large amount of energy, which seems to correspond to modern physical theories. For the type of live the founders of this story must have lived, »elemental fire and elemental ice« already is a surprisingly abstract way of description. They then go on to say that the world the evolved due to the natural course of things that happens when the different potentials come into contact, which also corresponds to modern physical theories. PS: While we're at it: I would like to publicly forecast that in the final season, dragons (»fire« - controlled by Bran, Tyrion and Daenerys) will fight the white walkers (»ice«). |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 19 06:42PM +0100 ...should advocate the forming of an international body for protecting the rights of sausages. And now, the funniest joke in the world: https://soundcloud.com/johnnydaukes/the-funniest-joke-in-the-world /Flibble |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: May 24 06:55PM -0700 On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 3:36:08 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin Rick, I suggest you start with something C++ related. You might want to put "Off topic" in your subject line if you don't start with something C++ related. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises http://webEbenezer.net |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: May 24 07:09PM -0700 On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 4:22:50 PM UTC-5, Leigh, please don't swear here. |
| 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