Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

C++ hatred

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-08 12:26

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: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:27

>>239
Well, the set that only contains 1 is countable, let me count it for you, 1, there I'm done.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:27

>>238
It's a math problem that came up during a programming project.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:28

>>242
You and your colleagues are fucking retards who don't know mathematics.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:28

`
>mfw
>claims to have graduated from Berkeley
>cant do simple maths

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:29

>>241
Yeah, but now how do I determine the inverse?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:29

>>242
It's also broken, or you didn't understand the question. The problem lies in you.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:29

>>243
This is coming from some fag who just knows how to google shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:30

>>245
The inverse of a set doesn't make any sense, do you mean the inverse of the map? That's impossible of course, it has multiple values that map to a single value, yet this has absolutely nothing to do with the statement that every subset of a countable set is also countable.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:31

>>246
No and no. The reason why you can't see "this" is because don't have programmer blood in you. Now run along and go scrub another toilet.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:32

>>248
Yeah, the inverse of a map. Let's say we can determine the inverse. How many {5}'s, {7}'s, and {9}'s would I have?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:33

>>249
So your inability to form coherent questions and well defined mathematical problems lies with him?

You still haven't disproved that every subset of a countable set is countable, go along and do that now. You just need a single instance and the statement is false, find me a single instance of a countable set which has an uncountable subset, go ahead.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:34

>>250
And with a little imagination, you can have something like

Mary --> 5
Jenny --> 7
Kay --> 9

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:34

>>250
Let's say we can determine the inverse
You can't it's not well defined as there are several values that map to 1. You have yet to form a subset that isn't countable though.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:35

>>251
Again, pleasee shut up and let the adults talk you unemployed faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:35

Ok, I'll be nice. Let's say these 1s are independent. 1-subscript-0, 1-subscript-1 etc. And basically these 1s belong to the set Y, and f:X->Y. It has to be a  one-to-one correspondence if we consider these 1s independent, so the cardinality of Y is equal to X's. If X is countable, Y is countable. If X is uncountable, then Y is uncountable.

But what point are you getting at?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:35

>>254
No please, enough with the ad-hominems, prove the statement wrong, you've stated that the statement is false, now show us why.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:36

>>253
Well, isn't the inverse uncountable? I mean, I could have 7 {5}'s or 10,000,0000 {5}'s map to {1}.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:37

>>245
the function f : {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10} -> {1}; f({5}) = {1}; f({7}) = {1}; f({9}) = {1} is:
- Not well defined, because neither {5}, {7}, {9} are in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10}. It's a function from {{5},{7},{9}}.
- Not injective, since there exist an x and an y such that f(x) = f(y) and x != y.
- Not invertible, since it is not bijective (it is not injective).

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:38

Why is he trying to disprove something that is true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set
Proposition: Any subset of a countable set is countable.
Proof: The restriction of an injective function to a subset of its domain is still injective.

Doesn't he know how mathematics work or something?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:38

>>257
Since it's a surjective mapping, there is no inverse in the first place. You can't have 7 {5}s or 10,0000000 {5}'s... sets can't have duplicates.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:39

"oops my bad, I had a brain fart". Is that hard to say?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:39

>>257
No it's neither countable or uncountable, it's not defined at all. Let's say that it was, how is the function a subset of {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:40

>>261
It is when your English is as bad as Kodak's.

Name: Alpha Male !gD3Op2fhHs 2012-01-10 17:41

>>261
You have to understand, he's a little retarded piece of crap, in his little world he can't be wrong, even when he provably is.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:41

>>252
Now that's a bijection!
let A be the set {Mary, Jenny, Kay}, and B the set {5,7,9}.
The bijective function f : A -> B is defined as:
f(Mary) = 5
f(Jenny) = 7
f(Kay) = 9
The inverse f-1 : B -> A is:
f-1(5) = Mary
f-1(7) = Jenny
f-1(9) = Kay

Happy now?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:41

>>260
{{5}, {{5{,{5}}, {{5},{5},{5}}..}

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:42

>>264
You're still a huge fucking faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:42

why are certain people having trouble grasping elementary topology?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:43

>>266
What is your point? That's not a subset of {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:43

>>265
So you still haven't told us if you're going to take the $10/hr tech support job or not.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:44

>>270
I'm not, and you're still wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:45

C'mon kodak, is really that hard to say "all right I made a mistake"?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:45

>>269
The numbers don't include anything above 10 nor anything below 1.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:46

>>273
Excellent observation, and?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:46

>>271
Well, given you're clearly too stupid to work as a computer programmer. Now again, shut up and just go "google stuff. Again, you don't have what it takes to write software for a living.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:47

Kodak, the proof is in >>259. What do you have to say now?

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-10 17:47

>>274
You stand zero chance of getting hired by either Google or Facebook as a programmer.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:47

>>275
I'm sorry, but it's you that's clearly googling stuff. And you're pretty bad at it too.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-10 17:48

>>275
And you don't know how to do elementary mathematics apparently, what a shitty workplace you must have, how could a company ever settle for someone as retarded as you? I guess they're not relying on you, or perhaps they are, considering Kodak is going bankrupt.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-10 17:48

>>278
Nope. Try again you unemployed idiot.
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -