Contero
> could determine that, in the absence of any undefined behavior
"could determine that" based on the code example shown
vs
"could determine that" based on static analysis performed on some preceding code
It would have been a lot easier to wrap my head around if it were an example where cond could be 0 or 4 or something along those lines. It would really underscore the compiler's desire to reuse the cond as the index.
if (cond) {
A[1] = X;
} else {
A[0] = X;
}
> If undefined behavior occurred somewhere in the integer arithmetic of cond, then cond could end up evaluating to a value other than 0 or 1
I don't even follow this very first example. Neither C nor C++ have any requirement that their condition statements be given 0 or 1.
In C:
> the first substatement is executed if the expression compares unequal to 0.
In C++:
> The value of a condition that is an expression is the value of the expression, contextually converted to bool
Where conversion to bool is defined as:
> A zero value, null pointer value, or null member pointer value is converted to false; any other value is converted to true
I'm sure such a thing could occur if cond had a boolean type but contained uninitialized data. That would be similar to the situation talked about in this link: https://markshroyer.com/2012/06/c-both-true-and-false/
Talk pages are a horrendous way to implement this. Making an edit proposal should be extremely new-user friendly.
I think a proposal and dialog format would do a much better job at absorbing new content than what happens currently, which seems to be a revert if you run afoul of any editing policy.
Why he thinks competition between brands isn't enough to counteract this I have no idea.
For example, I'd want to be able to use the facebook app and many users might even want to have it scan their address books in order to find friends. However, if the app attempts to read my address book when I'm just checking someone's status update that is clearly not okay and I want to be able to block it.
The free pass to pillage my phone upon installation doesn't sit well with me.
300 words isn't so much that it's cumbersome to read, but it definitely primed me to think that his point was somehow specific to apple and investing when it wasn't at all. I'm not surprised that people have decided to nitpick it.
In Monkey Island I would sometimes get annoyed and google for what to do out of angry frustration. It was easy for me to throw my hands up and say "I don't give a shit any more, time to move on!" Lots of times the solutions made zero sense to me. In Machinarium I still got a sense of frustration and puzzlement, but I would try to forego the hints out of pride for as long as I could which made for a much more enjoyable experience.
Many new programmers seem to warm up to Java "references" just fine, and they have mostly the same semantics of C pointers.
Maybe it's because passing by value is conceptually harder to grasp than passing by reference, and in C you must understand both in order to use pointers?
> Isn't it generally sound to assume causation until the position can be falsified?
Not really, no. Would you assume causation in the case of cereal consumption typically increasing 30% on the first Tuesday after a heavy rainfall? There are many similarly insane correlations that you wouldn't be so quick to assume causation about. It's biased to assume causation (based solely on statistics) when you want it to make intuitive sense.
There are many problems that started out as pains but are second nature to us now, so we don't think to optimize them.
I remember spending a ridiculous amount of time trying to figure out link and include paths to add a new library in visual studio when I was a new programmer. Doing so now is so easy I hardly need to think about it, but in reality it hasn't gotten any easier. I am simply familiar with the process.
Really, installing a new library should be as straightforward as installing an extension in a web browser. There is little essential complexity there, and yet this process has not become easier (in C/C++) for decades.
Anyone who knows enough about how to solve the problem has already groked it and isn't interested in solving it anymore. This is the problem I see with wanting an improved vim from someone who is already a vim expert. The problems they have with vim are disjoint from the problems a new programmer would have with vim.
What I will say is that if you are going to create a new editor, by the time you are done you should have become an expert in all the major text editors. You're absolutely right that any new editor should have seriously considered the features available in vim and emacs and others. However I have no problem with someone who isn't an expert getting inspiration to create their own editor out of their frustrations with vim. Many great things were stared in similar ways by people who weren't experts (yet).
BUCKINGHAM:
And when mine oratory grew to an end
I bid them that did love their country's good
Cry 'God save Richard, England's royal king!'
RICHARD:
Ah! and did they so?
BUCKINGHAM:
No, so God help me, they spake not a word;
But, like dumb statues or breathing stones,
Gazed each on other, and look'd deadly pale.
I see more value in having Disney pay an appropriately large amount of money to keep their IP than I see in making sure that their specific content gets into the public domain.
Who cares about steamboat willy if Disney is going to fight tooth and nail over it? It's everything else that will expire into the public domain that I care about.
It doesn't matter that information about X is available if you can't find out that X exists in the first place.
People will write bad code in every programming language you give them. I don't see that as a justification for limiting the expressiveness of a language. If you take that line of reasoning too far you end up with Java.
As long as Blizzard is the only party that can glean meaningful information from these watermarks I see no problem with it.
Of course, that's because I exclusively connect to Linux machines through an ssh terminal on my Win7 workstation. I've personally abandoned all hope for using Linux as a desktop OS. I live in the terminal on Linux because that's where the design actually lives. Anything GUI related is an afterthought.