>>54
(Oh, Lord. Need patience to deal with the fucktards around here.)
Listen, kid. If you read what I've said once again, you'll see that I did not claim that there weren't other compilers around, but precisely the opposite: there are a number of them, but often when one claims about binary incompatibility, these claims point to the two most used C++ compilers, when in fact these two compilers are
intentionally incompatible, since they use different ABIs. This guy
>>48 seemed to have some problem linking code produced by different C++ compilers, just in case you didn't notice.
And you don't know very much about ABIs and how linkers work, do you?
Your single problem is to feature some reading disability. Please take more time in your attempts to properly understand what your peers have written, or just refrain from posting. You create communication noise.
Also, sorry about sounding like a fucking pedantic. Reading again I rather agree with you on that part. I didn't mean to offend with that.
>>55
I've never faced such a situation, so I'm unaware of how difficult it really is. But I suppose you're correct.
I've heard that XInput is being redesigned into XInput2, with major changes. Maybe the new version can address these issues.
Anyway, the bottom line is: be bold. Peer review is essential in real world programming. Write to the developers. Show them some code, there's nothing better than a piece of code to illustrate how ludicrous some programming interfaces can be. Sometimes, the library developers themselves are unaware of how their interfaces are bad, because they don't take proper time in
using these interfaces.
>>58
I agree with you. Sorry, I did not intend to sound pompous. No trolling either.
Lisp can be just naively considered a hipster language simply because hipsters (umbrella term for loud, unknowledgeable and unproductive people in general) seem to enjoy it for its "cult" status. However, that's just as far as Lisp can go into this pejorative "hipster" term. Lisp is an excellent language, with a long history of success in the academia, mostly because of the great
ideas which it has helped to develop. My particular view on the subject is that Lisp is all about creativity.
Accordingly, this is why people linked to research (specially AI) have a thing for Lisp. These people are creative and need a tool which can reflect and boost their insight, making them trace new lines of thought. I believe that more "rigid" languages, like C, are not adequate for that purpose.
My opinion is: just don't buy too much of the hype, for any language, neither for good nor for bad. People interested on solving problems do not waste time bashing themselves with spurious language criticisms: these are for people interested in showing themselves in a stage, instead of actually
getting things done. As I've stated, most don't even have objective reasons to sustain their propositions. Instead, they only have a handful of highly "sensorial" arguments from their own personal (mis)experiences.
Lisp has its applications. C has its applications. C++ has its applications. Even FORTRAN has its applications.
Now, for me, hipster languages are languages designed by people with rather good intentions, but not enough maturity. Languages designed by apparent raw caprice and a high dosage of NIH. Languages which try to "fix" things but they happen to commit a number of crimes, sometimes the very problems they try to tackle from the other languages. They have no mission in mind. No specific problem to solve: just another dead addition to the already fat technological bulk. Python and Ruby are two of them, but there are many, many others. Fortunately most still dwell into unknowingness. The objective statement here is that they contribute nothing to the computer science in general: they're easily replaceable by something which already existed before them, without
any loss.
Note that these symptoms applies not only to programming languages, but to many other objects of computer technology (internet protocols, hardware designs, so on). I'm absolutely sure you could cite a number of ridiculously unnecessary and misdesigned things on the modern web technology, for example.