Why is C++ hated so much here in /prog/? Many good software are written in C++.
I'm aware that there are some problems in the language and it is considered "hard" to master it, but why do so many people hate it? What harm has it done?
Software can be written much quicker when using some scripting languages like Python. Software can be writte slightly quicker when using some managed language like Java. But when using those languages, the resulting program will require more resources to run. So there is place for C++.
For example, I bet the web browser of 99% people browsing /prog/ is written in C++. It's not perfect language, but it is the best language for complex program with relatively small CPU and RAM requirements.
>>129,131
A subset can include the empty set if the original set does. I think you're confusing it with the power set or something. A subset is not a set of sets unless the original set is.
>>134
Nah, this comes from a programming project at work. I had a case where every elment in A and B were such that A was an element of B. But the rest of the idiots on here wouldn't know about such things because they just work general labor jobs -(.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 15:59
>>136
I said "I believe" you fucking mental midget. Geeze, go google more shit instead of looking for a job.
Name:
Alpha Male!gD3Op2fhHs2012-01-10 16:02
>>135
You jelly that I am aesthetic and intelligent while you're just an ugly manlet that too dumb to understand even basic mathematics?
>>137
I work as an X (for some X), therefore the subset of a set is uncomputable.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:07
Where performance is critical, C++ is a pretty good choice. Anyone care to say otherwise? C is good also in this respect, but I prefer C++ because of its extra features (OOP, template metaprogramming, function overloading to name a few). Its downside is its bloat.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:10
>>142
Smalltalk did a much better job at OOP than what C++ did.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:15
>>143
I haven't used Smalltalk personally. In what way did it do a better job?
One more thing I forgot to mention about C++. The thing that brings it down the most is its header/source model. I heard C++11 was supposed to have modules, but now it's expected for TR2.
>>142 Anyone care to say otherwise?
Me. Better languages can give the compiler much more optimization hints than C++.
You don't imagine how much time and resources we spent on making C and C++ go fast.
>>137 I had a case where every elment in A and B were such that A was an element of B.
I can't tell what you're trying to say. It sounds like you googled the definition of subset, tried to paraphrase so it didn't look like you were just copying and pasting, and failed miserably.
Also, going back to >>129, what does the empty set even have to do with subsets? {∅} is a subset of {∅,2}, just like {1} is a subset of {1,2}.
>>138
So if you say "I believe", nobody can call you on being wrong? Nice.
go google more shit
This is pretty simple stuff. I wouldn't be challenging other people's knowledge if I didn't even know what a proper subset was.
>>149
You're right, I'm a senior Comp Sci major. But apparently being a programmer doesn't teach you shit about set theory, because you have no clue what you're talking about. Since you're so smart, stop it with the ad hominems and answer the next part of my post. I'll post it again, since you conveniently missed it last time.
What does the empty set even have to do with subsets? {∅} is a subset of {∅,2}, just like {1} is a subset of {1,2}.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:24
>>146
Try to ignore him, he's just another code monkey with no mathematical ability or talent, as a result he lacks the understanding of things like clear notation or logical thought.
I mean any person who writes
I had a case where every elment in A and B were such that A was an element of B.
clearly has no training in mathematical thought, and would be straight out laughed at by anyone with a basic level of knowledge.
Name:
kodak_gallery_programmer2012-01-10 16:26
>>151
There are several no trivial programming situations where the empty set is included in the subset. Also, you little fucking know it all moron, there is a vast difference between "googling shit" and "the real world".
>>153 So now, have many job offers have you gotten?
Several, and non-trivial.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:28
>>145
Could you name these better languages? I can think of a few things C/++ could do to help the compiler, but I can't think of a language that actually has them (possibly because I don't know too many :p).
>>148
Well, implementing lambda's wasn't difficult at all. It actually works out quite nicely consider C++ already had functors.
@People talking about sets: A class of sets contains the empty subset. You can't consider a set in its own right to contain it.
A proper subset is a subset that isn't equal to its superset.
>>155
Does that mean that Starbucks offered you a position of janitor, while McDonalds made an offer for a cashier position, and you find it non-trivial to decide?
Well, implementing lambda's wasn't difficult at all. It actually works out quite nicely consider C++ already had functors.
What the hell are you smoking?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:31
Kodak is a fucking retard, that he doesn't know basic mathematics illustrates that. The only highlight of his life is that some shitty company settled for him when they were looking for disposable code monkeys and when someone has a better job than him he just says that he doesn't believe them.
>>128 Hey Kodak, remind me what a subset is again? >>129 One that doesn't include the empty set?
...
>>153 There are several no trivial programming situations where the empty set is included in the subset.
That's it, I'm done. You are so fucking stupid.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:34
>>160
Lambda's in C++ are essentially anonymous functors. What's missing, exactly?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:34
>>162
I'm not the idiot that doesn't work as a computer programmer. Now go run off scrub another toilet. Again, you have no possible future as a computer programmer.
>>162
Remember, no logical thought and no clear syntax. I think he actually might be brain damaged since his English is riddled with mistakes as well and he seems to forget what he typed just a minute ago.
>>156
Immutable-by-default and mutability annotations would be a start.
First class support for statically checked contracts (with dynamic checks when needed) on functions and data structures.
A better type system, and an effect/region system. implementing lambda's wasn't difficult at all. It actually works out quite nicely
You cannot make polymorphic lambdas, so no.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:43
>>172
What has that got to do with what he said? He's right, every subset of a countable set is countable.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:46
>>173
That you have no clue as to what you're talking about. Now, for the 10th time, what do you do for a living?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:46
>>175
I never said he wasn't right. I'm just saying he's a tad bit confused on what he just "googled".
wtf this thread just went to shit
BTW: if you're not a complete tool or have atleast a hint of logical thinking you can do stuff even without knowing 'big bad math buzzwords'
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:48
>>176
Are you completely incapable of following a simple mathematical evidence? The statement that every subset of a countable set is also countable is a proven statement, most proofs are just a single sentence long actually. Why do you continue to deny it?
>>179
I mean this thread was shit to begin with, then went to shit a couple of times,
the shittiness of this thread increases exponentially everytime someone posts
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:50
>>170
THIS IS WHAT THE JEWS WANT YOU TO BELIEVE IT'S ACTUALLY NOT TRUE KODAK HOLDS THE REAL TRUTH
#EVERYSUBSETOFACOUNTABLESETISALSOCOUNTABLEDENIERSDOTORG
KEEP FIGHTING THE CONSPIRACY
Check out posts 75 and 76 (where you also say that the interval [0,1] is a subset of the natural numbers) in 129 you say that the statement breaks down under certain conditions.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:57
>>187
Go scrub another toilet you mental midget I'm done with you.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:57
>>187
You're problem is that keep asserting absolute truth.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:58
>>189
But it is absolutely true, have you no idea of what a proof is?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:59
>>188
I'm not the idiot that doesn't understand what they're reading. Come back again when you understand what you just read.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:59
Let us call a set "abnormal" if it is a member of itself, and "normal" otherwise. If N is a set of all normal sets, is N normal or abnormal?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 16:59
lolol kodak cant do maths
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 17:00
>>190
Absolute truth, in math, would imply necessary and sufficient. You haven't provided both. Now go scrub another toilet.
>>198
Look at him, there he goes again trying to sound smart by posting something completely unrelated and full of errors, look at him and laugh /prog/.
>>205
And now what happens if I extend this to some large number N? How would I determine how many {1}'s I have in this case?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 17:09
>>205
that would be a surjective mapping. i don't know what your point is
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 17:09
>>204
Go 'lol' some more for your grade school friends you fucking retard.
Name:
Alpha Male!gD3Op2fhHs2012-01-10 17:10
Hey Kodak this might not be a good moment to tell you, but I kind of banged that chick you think is cute, you know that chick from work? Good luck though brah, I'm sure if you scrub some more toilets that you'll be able to afford that leg extension operation you wanted so you'll no longer be as much of a pathetic manlet, you'll still be beta though so no chicks will bang you except for perhaps 3/10 chicks that are drunk.
>>207
The point is that I can't determine how many {1}'s I have in this set. In other words, it would be uncountable.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 17:12
>>205
Nothing, {5}, {7} and {9} are all countable just like {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10}, so the proposition is still true. Keep trying and failing though.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 17:12
>>209
Yeah, that's about the extend of your IQ. BTW, you're still a huge fucking faggot.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 17:13
>>210
Well then whatever set you're talking about isn't a subset of {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10} so you have proven nothing, if it were then it would be countable.