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.
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/.