In Python you write "a?b:c" as "b if a else c". I think that is pretty obscure, and hard to read too.

Null-terminated strings were considered superior to using a length because they allowed strings to be > 255 bytes long (using 16 bits for the length would allow longer counted strings, but at that time with 4K of memory nobody in their right mind would suggest wasting a byte like that!).

Null-terminated strings also have the nice property that getting the "tail" is a very fast operation, since you just return a pointer to the middle. This meant that searches could return strings, rather than indexes. This then meant that every function that worked on text only needed one argument, a string, rather than two (a string and an index). The savings due to this were pretty significant.

I was talking about the pre-lambda stuff in std and boost, especially std::foreach.

C++11x did in fact fix a lot of this and I certainly use the new syntax.

Actually more often I have seen the opposite: claims the new stuff is going to be faster, the compiler is not smart enough to figure out that they are the same, and thus you should use the new stuff.

There was a coworker who insisted that using C++ std::foreach for loops was faster because "the compiler knows you can't break out of it and thus can optimize the whole thing". I had two objections to this: first of all it would be a really stupid optimizing compiler that could not figure out there are no "break" statements inside the for loop. And second the C++ was still allowed to throw exceptions in both cases.

The other objection I had was that the functors were unreadable.

Yet another objection is my suspicion that the optimization would be far worse on the functors due to the enormous header files of templates they actually used and I expected the optimizer for the simple for loop to have fewer bugs in it. But I did not test this.

Copyright violation conviction results in having to pay monetary damages to the copyright holder, and to cease redistribution of the copyrighted work.

Fulfilling the requirements of the LGPL on new copies in no way is required by, and conversely also does not get you out of, the punishment. Therefore for every possible reason in the book this "viral" idea is false.

No, the center says "you can both cut spending and raise revenue".

You are stating a LIE that was written by MicroSoft. Absolutely not what Richard Stallman said.

The GPL does not compel anybody to freely license their product. What it does is make you violate copyright if you include GPL code in that product. The punishment for violating copyright is defined by law as monetary damages and a requirement to STOP distributing (and stopping is the exact opposite of being forced to distribute, you know).

Thanks for proving your ignorance.

I assume you just completely missed the fact that the original company was making money by selling a commercial license for their code? They certainly did not want to use the BSD license.

None of those get you off the hook for the previous copyright violation.

Also starting to distribute your own source code does not fix it either.

The viral argument is worse than misleading, it is totally wrong. The concept does not exist, it is a LIE being perpetuated by various parties for who defeat of open source is in their interests.

No, it has NOTHING to do with "infection". That is a FALSE concept, a LIE perpetuated by MicroSoft to discredit the GPL. There IS NO SUCH THING AS "infection".

What the LGPL does is give you some more methods of distributing the code without violating copyright. It has nothing to do with the punishment if you violate copyright, which does not change in one bit! And that punishment does NOT include 'you are forced to distribute stuff you have copyright on for free'. It just does not contain that in any law in any jurisdiction. So stop it with the lies.

No you are wrong.

The license gives rules that you must follow if you don't want to violate the copyright. There are other ways of not violating the copyright, an easy one is to not distribute a copy at all!

The license is enforceable. If you don't follow it you have VIOLATED COPYRIGHT, which is against the law.

But you are making the bogus and false statement that the punishment for violating copyright is to force you to continue distributing it but obey the license. That is FALSE. The punishment for violating copyright is that you must cease violating it (ie stop distributing!!!!!) and pay monetary damages to the copyright holder.

Conversely starting to obey the GPL on new distributions does not get you out of anything. You have still violated copyright with your earlier copies and therefore not only are you not forced to distribute code, it does not even help you!

You are repeating one of the biggest lies being perpetuated by MicroSoft. Don't be such a tool.

I seem to be spending a lot more time rebasing git commits and reading/writing code reviews and doing the necessary email to merge request further-rebased git commits into the main branch than actually fixing the code.

The chances that this "fast lane" will be used to service the deaf or blind is zero. This is the most ludicrous idea I have ever heard.
 

Hoover dam does not use the entire contents of Lake Mead in one day, stupid.

I don't think it produces 10x as much steam for a given amount of solar energy. What it does is produce steam at a solar intensity 1/10 of the level at which other things produce steam (the other thing is producing zero steam at the temperature this one is producing steam at).

I think the real result is you need the same amount of reflector as for other schemes, however it can concentrate the solar energy on an area 10 times as large, which may be much less expensive (due to it not requiring as much accuracy, and because the receiver is nowhere near as hot).