I thought that was something people used back when MS-DOS was a popular OS was not even aware the product still existed.
I am talking about Watcom C++ of course.
It was open sourced some time ago. Now it supports Linux (to some extent) and some other CPU architectures.
It can still make DOS/4GW exes, though. Ahh, nostalgia.
You do realize that "eyewitness accounts" are considered one of the least reliable forms of evidence, right?
I know they are one of the least reliable forms of evidence, but if you're going to talk about how they are considered then you need to specify who is doing the considering. I don't know about the courts of any particular country, but laypeople often seem to consider eyewitness accounts as infallible.
Myers-Briggs test, and it's 'N' for intuitive.
Yep, the I is for introverted.
allowed to dereference it without first checking it for NULL?
dereferencing a NULL pointer is always undefined behavior
Dereferencing without checking for NULL is not the same as dereferencing NULL.
Just because the compiler may not be able to prove that you never call that function with a NULL pointer, that does not mean you can't prove it yourself. If that is the case, why check again?
"crows" = "crowd". Good grief...
Crows are also very detail oriented. I get them to help me with my tax returns.
What are you basing this prediction on?
Android.
Yeah, I remember that time that Valve embraced, extended and extinguished Android.
Oh wait...
Being a ward of the Bureau of Prisons is not the same as working for the fed.
Yeah, that's more like being a contractor than an employee.
Rubbish. There are a million things the user is may do to their machine that will be more likely to break software than this update to 8.1.
That's beside the point. The whole customer base won't be doing any of those things all at the same time.
No, polygraphs are not 85-95% reliable. More like 50%. So save some time and money and just flip a coin.
What's next, phrenology? Polygraphs are scientifically invalid. If you are asked to take one just laugh in their face, and say you would prefer using a seance to have your long-dead grandfather testify.
Did you actually read GP's post?
Polygraphs are at best 85-95% reliable, according to supporters, and the real reliability is probably substantially lower
Your point is entirely correct, but you're not contradicting them, you're agreeing.
There are more comments bitching about the link than comments about the actual nebula. Even the nerds are disinterested in space these days...
No, it's just that the nerds who are interested in space already knew that this happens, so the only new thing here is the presentation.
I was a bit disappointed because I was expecting a time-lapse video.
I still think the video's worth watching, but switching between two images is hardly a revolutionary technique in astronomy.
I second robot_love. Let's do it.
I also support robot love! Equal rights for all beings!
Oh wait... that's a previous poster's name? My bad.
Baffled by this, I profiled the code, and the entire slowdown was template calls at the lowest level that triggered a lookup table that was abysmally slow (templates were REALLY bad in the compiler I was using, which I think was Borland).
Use of templates had a performance effect at runtime? That is an amazingly bad implementation.
With all those billions of dollars and thousands of smart people why couldn't Microsoft have actually helped us with something like this: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/29001/
Or this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/156693
Instead they come up with Metro...
At least they're trying to help fix this one: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1
The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up in the morning, and does not stop until you get to work.
