Well it's been many, many years since I've used it, which was back in the late 80s and early 90s. My impression from this time is that C++ is unquestionably a work of genius, but that I didn't particularly like it. Part of that is that we didn't really know how to use it effectively. In that era most object oriented programmers used concrete inheritance way too much. Part of that is due to aspects of what we thought an OO language should have that turned out to add complexity while being only marginally useful in practice (e.g. multiple concrete inheritance and operator overloading).

But in terms of meeting its design goals C++ is a tour de force of ingenuity -- even if some of those goals are questionable by today's standards. The very fact that we know some of those features aren't necessarily ideal is because they were taken out of the realm of academic noodling and put into a practical and highly successful language that could tackle the problems of the day on the hardware of the day. It's hard to overstate the practical impact of C++ on the advancement of both theory and practice of software development.

Any prize for contributions to OO programming pretty that didn't include Stroustrup in its first recipients would be dubious.

The idea that the markets for every other concievable consumer product should be turned into the PC upgrade treadmill from the 90s is hardly a selling point.

That bullsh*t isn't even tolerable on PCs now anymore.

People got tired of it. I doubt anyone wants a return of that crap.

Much like the music industry, video needs format churn to fuel unsustainable growth.

The industry already has a problem convincing people that they need HD. A lot of people don't have the enthusiast sorts of setups where it would really matter. Or rather, most people don't.

A lot of people are skipping 3D too.

The industry got fat off of a forced technology switch. They were on the gravy train for awhile and don't want to go back. It never occured to them that they were experiencing an unsustainable bubble.

Now they want to throw all sorts of nonsense at us in a desperate attempt to keep the gravy train rolling.

Anyone with a space where they can mount a projector will be in a decent enough position to see an improvement with 4K.

Everyone else, not so much.

4K probably needs a media format to get off the ground. The extra bandwidth required for a 4K broadcast is probably a problem for most cable systems. The extra bandwidth required for streaming will VERY likely be a problem.

Streaming already has to make severe compromises as is.

Although most people probably don't have viewing setups that would benefit from 4K. Many don't have setups that benefit from BD even.

I have an even better idea: let's find a way to fix human beings so that they're perfectly consistent in their behavior.

While certainly taking demonstrably bad drivers off the road is a no-brainer, even good drivers have lapses. My teenaged son is learning to drive, and whenever someone does something like cut us off I make a point of saying we can't assume the driver did it on purpose, or did it because he was an inconsiderate or bad person. Even conscientious and courteous drivers make mistakes or have lapses of attention.

It's the law of large numbers. If you spend a few hours on the road, you'll encounter thousands of drivers. A few of them will be really horrible drivers who shouldn't be on the road. But a few will be conscientious drivers having a bad day, or even a bad 1500 milliseconds.

No it isn't. As a Unix MacOS is pretty unrecognizable once you scratch the surface. It's not really a Unix. It's just that the "certification" is so low level that it allows for a level of inconsistency that no Apple fanboy would tolerate (unless it's an Apple product).

Really MacOS is only a Unix for marketing purposes. It's not something that Apple (or the cult) actually wants exposed to the masses. It's just something to tick off the checklist and to point to when Windows and Linux users snicker.

"No. We're not really the product that panders to morons. It's a Unix and everything."

The argument is not stupid. A lot of us actually use multiple Unixen and view the notion that MacOS is one too to be laughable.

> Why do that? Chromebook is already running Linux,

CUPS.

I don't have any interest in every little thing I do on my home network being tied to the Google collective. The same arguments for leaving ChromeOS can be applied equally to removing it and replacing it with Linux.

The term Linux becomes a problem as soon as there is a different user land bolted on top of it. Once Android became popular, the problem of conflating GNU with Linux finally became more than just an academic exercise.

GNU tools were popular before the rise of Linux. They were popular even on non-Unix operating systems. That's the nature of something you are free to recompile anywhere.

The fact that something is Linux/but-not-GNU matters when you try to do something with it not supported but commonplace with Linux/that-is-actually-GNU.

That's kind of what this whole article is about: those of us that get disgusted with ChromeOS and install a proper Linux.

No. It's much easier to just start up Steam.

Ditto for dusting off something like Sim City 3000, Kohan, or CivCTP.

> "fully supported" laptop without any binary blob

You lost me right there. You're already on a religious crusade here. Getting it to work is clearly a distant goal for you. So anything else you have to say on the matter is somewhat suspect.

Dark Horse adapted the Star Wars 1st draft script into a comic miniseries. It really does put things into perspective.

> I agree. IMO the complaints about the prequels were fueled primarily by nostalgia about the original movies

It's useful to note that The Phantom Menace managed to NOT win the Oscar for special effects that year. It's especially glaring when you're standing in the theater at ILM looking over at R2-D2 wondering why it's not on their little list. It's absence is conspicuous.

It wasn't on that list because The Matrix got the Oscar that year.

Bullsh*t.

I remember the original release of Star Wars. It had a wide appeal even to non-child audiences. While it was a somewhat "childish" concept, Lucas did not treat it in childish manner.

I knew adults that liked Star Wars as much as I did. One couple I knew even had some of the original action figures on display in their living room.

That's in stark contrast to the prequels that managed to bomb with my own kid.

Pandering to kids is ultimately selling them short. It's also likely to annoy adults in the audience. Trying to pretend you understand the mind of kids is likely folly. Just having fun yourself is probably a lot easier and more effective.

You lost me at "used".