You're referring to the "static initialization fiasco" and other joys? Yes, a bit of a shame for C++ really.

Real men code in Assembler.

1) is more labor-intensive (programmers are lazy) than 2) (it's risky to catch an exception and not let it fly unless you know exactly what you must do to recover correctly). So, in practice, 1) will generate more bugs. Not because it a worse engineering practice, but simply because it's more error-prone.

Are you TFS? No? Then maybe it'd best to let him/her answer in your stead so he can explain his opinion, don't you think? :-)

Anyway, thanks for the informative tidbit.

But working so close to Unix is no reason to favor it on one's "portable computer" like TFS calls it. There are plenty of reasons to prefer Windows on a laptop (driver support, applications available, etc.). It's unfortunate of course, but what can you do...

You've never seen C++ programs with memory leaks? Unfortunately, not every C++ coder is knowledgeable or disciplined enough to localize pointer memory deallocation in destructors only.

But when it's "done right" like you said, correct C++-style coding in C++ makes for absolute control over resource (de)allocation - and this is applicable not only for memory but other types of shared, limited resources as well. Very elegant, and very useful at times. I regret that in Java there are no destructors, but then again in Java you have no control over destruction of objects. This is convenient but limited. C++ provides control.

. I think in most cases though, it's best to avoid the risk of programmers forgetting to apply the idiom as they should. Of course, it's still way safer and more elegant than attempting the same thing in C. The Java approach of using a garbage collector doesn't shock me. Sure, it's not applicable to all application types, but it works well in most enterprise computing cases and it makes for increased productivity.

anyway why do I reply to a post I mostly agree with?

If only I had mod points to mod you and GP up.

This actually is the author's point:

Thanks. I laughed so hard reading the joke in reference, it's justified the time spent reading what otherwise amounts to a pretty useless Slashdot discussion.

Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.

WYGIWYG, not WYSIWYG! Brilliant. :-)

Autonomous cars are an interesting concept - but Google is doing that? Why? Surely not just because they can (what with the data centre power and their reserves of cash)

Am I the only one slightly worried by Google's efforts in becoming the ultimate mega-corporation?

What's next? Microsoft doing pharmaceutical research?

Yep, and to support this here is the obligatory Freakonomics reference (emphasis mine):

http://www.wikisummaries.org/Freakonomics:_A_Rogue_Economist_Explores_the_Hidden_Side_of_Everything (Chapter 3):

In Chapter 3, Levitt offers an in-depth discussion of the economic workings of a Chicago drug gang, shattering the common misconception that all drug dealers are wealthy. His analysis of the financial records of a Chicago gang proved that most street-level dealers earned far less than minimum wage. He turns to the socioeconomic context of most gangs for an explanation of the incentives that compel young men to become drug dealers. The influence of gangs is a critical part to the function of the economy because it consistently creates jobs and programs to the fight the prevalent issues.

After having avidly read the previous Slashdot article and TFA, I was struck by this in Kurzweil's response (emphasis mine):

The question we are trying to address is: what is the complexity of this system (that we call the brain) [...]? The original source of that design is the genome (plus a small amount of information from the epigenetic machinery), so we can gain an estimate of the amount of information in this way.

Didn't PZ Myers say first that, on the contrary, DNA is merely giving a hint as to what the result of the "ontegeny" will be? That the real work is done by stochastic processes during development and therefore DNA doesn't tell us much at all about the final product? In which case, how can Kurzweil reduce the complexity of the brain to a what is only starter data?

I read an article in a boxing magazine years ago that claimed that padded leather helmets are bad too: they somehow transform the shock wave from a hit in such a way that it actually damages the brain even more that with no helmet.

The disturbing TFA makes me think I am rather happy not to kickbox anymore.

After having lived for 7 years in the US, I moved to the UK. I was made fun of because I was saying a "rowt" instead of a "route", obviously influenced by the pronounciation of the word by some Americans (I was living in California before).

Also, the pronounciation "rowt" is acknowledged by the (excellent) American dictionnary Meriam-Webster.

Disclaimer: in my native tongue, we say "route" not "rowt", and it's not like I invented the second kind of pronounciation.

yours truly in Language Nazism.

Very good point.

I often have the impression that the Slashdot community is dominated (in forum participation at least) by people who live in English-speaking countries, especially the UK and, obviously, the US. I wonder how true that is. Are there any stats on Slashdot demographics?

Apologies: I realize this is a bit off-topic.

People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created

This statement is a bit too clear-cut. AFAIK, history - and in particular the Industrial Revolution - begs to differ with you. It seems technological progress is often met with rejection - sometimes even accompanied with violence. People being scared of the potentially devastating effects of machines on their lives. A famous example is related here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Excerpt: "The principal objection of the Luddites was against the introduction of new wide-framed automated looms that could be operated by cheap, relatively unskilled labour, resulting in the loss of jobs for many skilled textile workers."

Could this possibly sound familiar?