1ris
"_Generic" added function overloads to c, not generics. The naming is exceptionally poor.
The submission is an example of generic programming. It an implementatin of something that works on all types that fullfill certain constrains. In this case comparable and swapable. "All types" include user defined types.
"_Generic" does something completely different. The C++ equvivalent would be std::conditional_v<std::is_same<T, int>, myIntFunc, std::conditional<std::is_same<T, double>, myDoubleFunc ............ The exact opposite of a generic, I'd argue, as myIntFunc and myDoubleFunc do depend on the type. You might use the preprocessor to create these functions that differ only in type, but then again, you might do what OP did.
This is what the article is about? Things much better that printf are a dime a dozed and available since 20 years.
>Some people talk about getting work done,
Like this article does? While you busy arguing that you could do the same thing, but much worse?
I don't considers this to be "proper" variadic arguments, because a functions argument has to have a type. and these, as far as I'm aware of don't have one. This is about a powerfull as passing a void**. This is essentially memcopying multiple differently typed into a char* buffer and then passing that buffer. You can than correctly copies them back you have pretty much the same behaviour. Both methodss obviously lacks important aspects of the language abstraction of a function parameter and i don't what that feature can bring to the table that the previous techniques don't.
When i want to print a string i don't want to worry about the security implications of that. With printf i have to. [0]
And i certainly don't want a turing complete contraption. [1] Also looking at log4j.
And even if everything is correct, it's has to parse a string at runtime. I consider that alone unaesthetic.
>Edit: It's almost like the whole world got a lot of work done with the tools they already had.
The best metaphor i know for this attitude is "stacking chairs to reach to moon". If you don't care about the limits of the tech you will be stuck within it.
I'm time and time again amused how anti intellectual and outright hostile to technological progress the programming profession is. programmers, out of all of them.
It can be implemented as a single line of force water flow with 20-25 Celsius. It is viable as both a heat source and a heat sink at the same time.
This thing can be connected to both your coolers and heaters, and thus transfere heat from one to another. Maybe you could even get you desktop computer into the loop.
Usually it implemented on a lager scale, but i don't see why this would work scaled down.
But it looks like a lot of people assume they are just as bad without any quantitate or qualitative assessment.
Lithium mining is way less bad than oil extraction in both dimensions. If that lithium can offset oil consumption it looks particular good.
Oh yes, I do. I do know what i mean and I can see that your quote of it was either extremely unintelligent, something you can by definition not see, or intentionally miss representing and therefore bad faith and therefore something you by definition lie about.
I'm heavily leaning to bad faith, because you never make any attempts to refute arguments anywhere in the whole thread.
So, of course, I'm obviously correct on on this one, so it's good thing either of us wasted any time talking on the substance.
This is mincing words and a bad-faith argument. I consider this discussion pointless and will not continue.
If, what ever the happens there, is not up to your standard of professionalism, maybe your standard is unrealistic?
If professional chefs would constantly maim themself and each other despite extensive occupancy safety training, knives have no place in the hands of a responsible professional.
Using C is the SE equivalent of taping down one button of the two-hand control device of a die cutter.
It's a universal sentiment. I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it is said.
What picture exactly is of course not important. Any popular picture with a glass plate in front of it could have done the job. I don't they have any ax to grind about Vermeer, nor will the controversy have any connections to him or his art.
We didn't stop all human activity or activism for the last 70 years and neither should we have done so.
This is the biggest Whataboutism if have ever heart of.
My point was: Effective activism does not have to be likeable. Going for the opposite seems a viable strategy.
I don't think most vegans will quote them for their change, but their activism that gave animal wellfare attention in a attention economy, when it would otherwise simply not have gotten any.
With regards to your article: I think the authors answers his own questions: These are serious scientists. They told everybody in the whole world that we are all going to die (I'm paraphrasing, but you get it) in the most adult and sophisticated way possible: Highly prestigious peer reviewed journals, conferences and so on for several decades. Nobody listed. THAT was highly ineffective. Now it seems like time for a change in strategy.
And given how very well it worked for the yellow vests and their infantile demands it looks like a good strategy.
Time has disprove these people. I don't see how this is any different.
I won't heat my (different) apartment this winter. It will be ok.