OH YOU!!! Sounds like you forgot to chalk your fingernails today buddy !!! Let's get started on our translation, kiddy cat!
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 11:25
>>4
NEVER MIND! YOUR FACE IS PURPLE FROM THE HEAT!
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 11:25
Thats dramatik cat! Wery dramatik! Cosine cat!
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 11:26
Dramaticat!
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 11:26
I laughed so hard my cock BOUNCED off!
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 11:27
I laughed so hard my cock RICOCHETED!
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 11:27
Your nose is full of tomato sauce! Stupid carrier man! Take that, little boiling !
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 11:28
Keep telling youself rthat kitten!!!!!!!!
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 11:29
My ceiling ricocheted from the ceiling! My ceiling ricocheted from the ceiling! My cock ricocheted from the ceiling!
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 11:30
Your dog is full of PLASMA DECAY! Take the longer path, Mr. Automatic tomato-matic! This was not!
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 11:36
C++ is both the best and the worst, it has the highest degree of variance and is highly sensitive the skill-level of the programmer. Expert programmers can do anything in C++ that outperform most other general purpose languages, even C89 due to things like inline functions and rvalue-references, while still yielding a well-designed and well-factored code base. Novice programmers can create the most bloated and slowest shit with C++ that is a nightmare to maintain.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 11:45
>>14
AS FAST AS C LOL
C IS SOOOOOOO FAST AND SOOOOOOOOO LOW LEVEL AM I RIGHT? C++ IS NOT AS LOW LEVEL AND NOT AS FAST AS C BUT IT IS AS FAST AS C ANYWAY XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 11:47
could u plys all imagine for a short time how i put my dich in u mouth?
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 11:47
>>15
You don't know anything. C++ is a weak superset of C. In C++, you do not pay for the features you do not use. If you don't use virtual functions or exception handling, you do not pay any performance penalties. If you use features like templates, inline functions, rvalue-references, and so on correctly, you can beat out average to experienced C programmers.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 12:07
>>17
AS FAST AS C LOL
C AND C++ MAKE APPS SUPER FAST THEY HAV HIGH EPRFORMANCE FEATURES LIEK COMPILE TIME CODE GENERATION (!!!!) 2 BE SUPER FAST BCUZ U PAY ONLY AT COMPILE TIME ITS SOMETHING UNSEEN IN ANY OTEHR LANGUAGE AND HAS SUPER FAST LOW LEVEL POINTERS (!!!!) WHICH MAKE IT AS FAST AS C!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I LUV C AND C++ BUCZ THEIR SO FASTTTTTTTTTTTT
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 12:07
>>14 Expert programmers can do anything in C++ that outperform most other general purpose languages, even C89 due to things like inline functions
The world has moved on. We're now at C99 you moron.
rvalue-references
There is no such beast you twit. Just for the record, C doesn't have references. They have pointers. I know they might be the same thing to a nowhere bitch like you, but for those of us who do this shit for a living, it isn't the same.
Bullshit. I can't recursively call main() is C++, const in C++ is different than const in C, and the list of differences go on.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 12:15
>>20
Hence it's a weak superset, not a true superset. Try to parse other people's posts before you reply.
>>19 We're now at C99 you moron.
I would hope so. Unfortunately, people still avoid using inline functions when they have access to C99, they have a tendency to write small functions as regular functions and induce unnecessary call overhead. There is no such beast you twit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B0x#Rvalue_reference_and_move_semantics I know they might be the same thing to a nowhere bitch like you.
Semantically, they are the same except for that reference address binding is immutable. That said, they both have their places. Also, you don't seem to know what rvalue-references are.
Tell me why should we still use C and C++, and what makes them ``as fast as C''.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 12:25
>>21 Hence it's a weak superset, not a true superset. Try to parse other people's posts before you reply
I'm following the standard english defintion of the word 'superset'. Not some made up jewish version like what you seem to be using.
Semantically, they are the same except for that reference address binding is immutable. That said, they both have their places. Also, you don't seem to know what rvalue-references are.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. I'm going to speak from a C perspective here. In C, pointers don't have an address and the address doesn't get bound to anything. In standard C lingo, you have copy an object and the value of this object yields a value. This value may be address. However, it could be soemthing else.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 12:32
>>21 Unfortunately, people still avoid using inline functions when they have access to C99, they have a tendency to write small functions as regular functions and induce unnecessary call overhead.
Have you ever written a single line of code in your entire life? Just curious, because some smart C compilers will automatically inline the functions. Some compilers you can pass this as an option, some you can't. La de da.
Cripes you are one stupid S.O.B.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 12:38
>>23 I'm following the standard english defintion of the word 'superset'. Not some made up jewish version like what you seem to be using.
All supersets are Jewish.
In standard C lingo, you have copy an object and the value of this object yields a value. This value may be address. However, it could be soemthing else.
You are absolutely, completely wrong. I said "bound" to an address, not has an address, although you could take a pointer to pointer, in which case you would be using the address of the pointer object itself.
Refer to §6.2.4 Clause 2, §6.5.3.2 Clause 3, and §6.6 Clause 9.
"Zn object exists, has a constant address,25) and retains
its last-stored value throughout its lifetime.26)" "The unary & operator yields the address of its operand. If the operand has type ‘‘type’’, the result has type ‘‘pointer to type’’. If the operand is the result of a unary * operator," "An address constant is a null pointer, a pointer to an lvalue designating an object of static storage duration, or a pointer to a function designator; it shall be created explicitly using the unary & operator or an integer constant cast to pointer type, or implicitly by the use of an expression of array or function type."
>>24
>Just curious, because some smart C compilers will automatically inline the functions.
Yes, link-time optimization, with GCC you use -flto. It does not work across shared library boundaries, however, and therefore you must rely on the explicit use of inline functions.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 12:42
>>25
Re-read it again you fucking stupid shit annoying jew.
The unary & operator yields the address of its operand
I see the word 'yields', not 'bound'.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 12:44
>>29 An address constant is a null pointer, a pointer to an lvalue designating an object of static storage duration
An address constant is ... a pointer to an lvalue designating an object of static storage duration
Also, fuck you for being a troll.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 12:44
>>28
No. Some C compilers will *automatically* inline the function(s). Cripes. Are you just trolling or are you really this fucking stupid?
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 12:47
>>30
Listen you fucking nigger. I don't see the words 'bound'. I just see the word 'yield'. These are two different things. The fact that you think that they might be or imply the same thing makes you that much dumb. Now fuck off and go play with your sister's barbie dolls. You clearly don't have the mental capacity for computer programming.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 12:48
And now you stupid annoying shit..
An address constant is a null pointer, a pointer to an lvalue designating an object of static storage duration
Nowhere does this say an address is getting bound.
>>31
They can't do it across shared library boundaries. You know, ELF .so libraries or Mach .dylib libraries or Windows .DLL libraries. If you create a shared library, and use a function in that shared library, the compiler will not and cannot automatically inline functions from that shared library into your program.
>>32
A pointer is an address. A pointer is bound to an address. It's the same fucking thing you faggot.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 12:53
>>35 A pointer is an address. A pointer is bound to an address. It's the same fucking thing you faggot
A pointer yields a value which is an address. A pointer isn't bound to an address. If you would have ever take the time to have written a crude C compiler, you would have realized that they aren't the same thing.
>>35 They can't do it across shared library boundaries
Again, have you ever written a single line of production level code for a major US firm?
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 12:56
>>37
I'm not the one that doesn't understand C. Now I see why you work a low paying job at a hick firm.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:00
>>38
Yes. Do you think they inline across shared libraries? If so, can you produce evidence of such a miraculous occurrence?
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:00
[b][i]NOTHING IS AS [o]FAST[o/] AS C[/i][/b]
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:01
>>39
Where does it say a pointer yields a value which is an address. It doesn't say that, it says that the address-of operator, &, yields the address of it's operand. A pointer does not yield an address, a pointer is an address. You don't seem to know anything, you keep bending definitions to fit your lies.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:02
>>40
Do you live near Berkeley, CA? If so, I'll be up in my cubicle at Kodak Gallery in Emeryville, CA this monday morning around 7am. If you want, you can come up here and I can school your monkey ass on computer programming.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:05
>>42 Where does it say a pointer yields a value which is an address
My whole issue was you using the word 'bounds'.
A pointer does not yield an address, a pointer is an address
What if I have
char *foo:
Now I compile this code. What's the address in this case?
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:07
>>44
And just for clarification, I just compile it. I don't actually run this piece of code. Why would I want to do this? Maybe because this piece of code is part of a really large project.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:08
>>43
I'm afraid not, but I wish I did so maybe you could give me a job.
>>51
But the point being, a pointer isn't an address. If it was, then it would never pass the compilation phase because the compiler would be expecting a value that can only be produced at runtime.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:17
>>53
And I just know this because I've written a few crude compilers/linkers for Kodak.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:21
>>54
Didn't save Kodak from their dying business model.
>>56
Okay, I'm not versed on C++. But I'm going to take a wild guess and that this something similar to what Java does. At compile time, the compiler will mark/flag this as a declared type. However, the actual type, which might be different, isn't known until run time. Am I close?
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:30
are you people fucking retarded
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:31
*and say that this is something similar to what Java does*
>>60
No. Also, capitalize the word Jewish you fucking nigger Nazi.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:39
>>57
Nope, the type is determined at compile time. The type of a is a ``reference'' to ``int'', and it's bound to a null address. In fact, that must be where I'm getting the terminology for using "bound", as the C++ language specification actually uses that nomenclature. I was wrong when I thought C did the same, sorry. Attempting to access ``a'' will result in undefined behavior during execution, just as dereferencing a null pointer would in C.
In Java, this is sometimes called a 'declared type'. I don't know about C++, but the reason why Java makes this distinction is because the language supports this load of shit known as dynamic binding.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:49
Now let's wait for the homos from the Lisp camp professing how their loser language is a lot superior and then tell us how we should read SICP.
I just read the last 50 posts of this shit and I hate you all. How the fuck do you get by with such a poor understanding of…well, everything?
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:54
>>66
It can't be that fucking poor since I get paid a lot of money for being a code monkey.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 13:54
>>63
Yeah, all non-fundamental/trivial types in Java are "reference types", but reference types in Java aren't the same as reference types in C++.
Java reference types are for compound objects that exist only on the garbage collected heap, an a can be assigned a null address/value explicitly. In a sense, they are semantically the same as pointers in C, just without additional syntax like * and ->.
C++ references can refer to fundamental/trivial objects anywhere in memory, whether they're on the stack, heap, or some other region of addressable memory. However, they must be explicitly bound to an actual object, you can't create reference that has an undefined address or null address unless you use some hacks like pointer-to-reference casts. They're primarily used for passing compound types by reference to functions, without requring * or -> syntax for dereferencing or accessing members.
struct foo { int a; int b; };
void bar(foo& f) { f.a = f.b * 3; }
// usually compiles down to equivalent machine code as is generated by the following:
>>66
It's not that bad, at least people are familiar with perusing the actual language specifications instead of going off of second-hand knowledge passed on by word of mouth from the workplace or at school.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-12 14:05
hi ever1 im autism!!!!!!! *autism* my autism is autism but u can call me t3h 4uTiSm oFaut1sM!!!!!!!!!!!! lol...as u can see im very AUTISM!!!!! thats why i came here, 2 meet AUTISTIC AUTISTS like me ^_^... im 13 years old (im autistic 4 my age tho!!) i like 2 watch autism video lectures w/ my autism (my autism is autistic if u dont like it deal w/it) its our autism!!! bcuz its SOOOO AUTISTIC!!!! hes autistic 2 of course but i want 2 meet more AUTISTIC AUTISTS =) like they say the more the more autistic!!!!!!
lol...neways i hope 2 make alot of autism here so give me lots of autism!!!!AUTIIIIIIIIIISM!!!!!!!!! <--- me bein AUTISTIC again ^_^ hehe..autism!!!!!