>>1
The problem is C++ is undecidable, so having a C++ editor with the features of say emacs with swank/slime for lisp is a very hard problem to solve.
This means you're somewhat on your own. I've heard lots of good things about code::blocks, and I have good personal experience with Geany. Of course, I also use emacs with bsd-style indentation.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-05 18:57
>>6 The problem is C++ is undecidable
Uh.. Obviously any Turing complete system is undecidable. I have a compuer science degree so I know what i'm talking about.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-05 19:58
>>7
Get your money back - they didn't teach you terribly well. C++'s syntax is undecidable without context. You're telling me C is not turing complete because its syntax is decidable?
First of all, just because the syntax ``requires context'' doesn't make it undecidable. Context sensitivity and undecidability are not equivalent in the Chomsky hierarchy.
Second, you've inferred a bidirectional implication where I gave none. "Any Turing complete system is undecidable" doesn't entail "any decidable system is not Turing complete".
Back to logic class, please.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-05 22:25
>>11
for those of you who didn't understand this post, allow me to sum it up:
>>11
Perhaps you should revisit logic yourself (but I never had a logic classes, had to figure it out myself instead of having it handed to me). I never said that it was undecidable simply because it requires context. Perhaps you should talk to Yosefk and prove that C++ is decidable.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-06 0:46
"Any Turing complete system is undecidable" doesn't entail "any decidable system is not Turing complete".
lol
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-06 0:59
C++ isn't Turing complete. The tape can be finite, and automatically extended with blanks as needed (which is closest to the mathematical definition), but it is more common to think of it as stretching infinitely at both ends and being pre-filled with blanks except on the explicitly given finite fragment the tape head is on. (This is, of course, not implementable in practice.) The tape cannot be fixed in length, since that would not correspond to the given definition and would seriously limit the range of computations the machine can perform.[1]
At least all the dumbshit morons just discovering what the fuck this Touring shit is about are talking about programming, and not /lounge/ bullfuckings.
OKAY YOU FUQIN ANGERED AN EXPERT PROGRAMMER
GODFUCKIGNDAMN
FIRST OF ALL, YOU DONT FUQIN KNOW WHAT A TOURING MACHINE IS
SECONDLY, THIS IS /prog/ DO NOT DEMAND USEFUL ANSWERS THE WAY YOU WANT THEM TO BE
THIRDLY PROGRAMMING IS ALL ABOUT PHILOSOPHY AND ``ABSTRACT BULLSHITE'' THAT YOU WILL NEVER COMPREHEND
AND FUQIN LASTLY, FUCK OFF WITH YOUR BULLSHITE
EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED IN >>12,17,21
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-06 9:48
Touring, touring, is never boring Touring, touring, is never boring
Touring, touring, is never boring Touring, touring, oh baby, touring
Especially with your favorite girl Touring, touring, all around the world
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-06 21:05
>>17
Hate to break it to you buddy, but your diagram is wrong. B = C, thread over.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-06 21:44
>>25
Even if that were true (which it isn't), that wouldn't make the diagram wrong. It'd just mean that B∖C = ∅, which is perfectly compatible with the diagram as drawn.
You suck at Venn diagrams.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-06 21:54
which it isn't
Yes it is.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-06 22:47
>>27
It's trivial to come up with undecidable systems that aren't Turing complete. You know as much about decidability as you do about Venn diagrams.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-06 23:14
>>28
PROTIP: >>26 and >>27 are not the same person. And if it's so trivial, then why haven't you provided an example?
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-06 23:16
>>29
No shit. >>28 is >>26. You suck at reading comprehension as much as you do at understanding Venn diagrams or knowing anything about decidability.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 1:41
gedit is obviously superior to all.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 1:58
>>31
I actually use gedit for Python coding because it has better syntax highlighting for it than vim does by default.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 2:40
>>32 syntax highlighting
As if using FIOC weren't rage inducing enough.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 3:02
>>32
I'm not following you. How can you get better than perfect? Is this a Zen thing?
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 11:54
>>30
I am not >>26. And you still haven't provided an example to support your ``claim''.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 12:03
>>35
No shit. >>30 is >>26. You suck at reading comprehension as much as you do at understanding Venn diagrams or knowing anything about decidability.