Thanx.

Now why don't you post something. We haven;t read any JEs from you in a year and a half! :)

"Wisecracks I let fly on Twitter"

Laurie David for First Lady?

Or a massage therapist willing to release his third chakra?

Two C++ programmers will argue, 'What will my compiler do with this code?"

You have a very good point, but that's less about the language and more about the compiler. Arguably the most broken compiler was (and likely still is) Microsoft's Visual C++.

But somehow C# is "fixed". LOL.

Emacs lost that argument when it added a vi mode. :)
gVim FTW

Dude, the original poster who claimed that C++ is bloated probably loves him some Java or C#, both of which are arguably even more bloated that C++ is, since the "bloat" of C++ is the STL and Boost... which is comparably smaller than .NET, Swing, JavaFX, etc.

A better developer who understands what it is he or she is trying to accomplish would help more.

I'd say I've seen just as much piss poor code written in Java and C#, but that'd be a lie. I've seen FAR worse code written in Java and C# than I have in C++ because the level of entry is much lower.

When I was in college, not understanding pointers means you didn't graduate. Now... I interview "C# Developers" who claim 10+ years experience who can't tell me the difference between pass-by-value and pass-by-reference, and don't know the difference between the heap and the stack.

If you care about performance, the ability of C++ to "run on the iron" is a valuable tool to have in your arsenal. Add in inline assembler, and IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING you can write blazing fast code in C++ and still provide a sensible code architecture.

There's no sense in blaming the language for the abuses developers have written -- you might as well indict English for the horrible spelling and grammar of many Americans...

If you know what you're doing, C++ is a terrific, powerful language suitable for a plethora of projects. On the other hand, if you don't know what you're doing, well, I guess there's Visual Basic or C#.

Pretty sure both Rick Perry and Greg Abbott -- and especially Ted Cruz -- would wipe the floor with any Democrat on Jeopardy.

Especially the "brilliant" Sheila Jackson Lee.

I asked Barack Obama about Ms. Lee, he said he learned about her idiocy from the papers. You know, like he learned about Benghazi, Hillary's illegal email accounts, etc.

Being prevented from possessing a small class of items is obviously different from complete prohibition which was discussed above.

The problem with that is who decides where that line is?

Liberals want to ban "assault rifles", and by assault rifles they mean "black and scary looking". My AR-15 fires both .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO -- it's a small round, useful for hunting small game and Deer. AR-15's are popular because they're accurate, and have very low recoil. Meanwhile, because it's not a "assault rifle", you libs ignore my bolt action .308 Winchester... which is FAR NASTIER of a round, capable of taking down medium to large game -- Elk, Moose, etc.

Here's another example of stupidity -- I have a Springfield XDS chambered in .45 ACP. Single stack, 5 rounds. On the hard shell case it a huge label: "NOT LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA".

Why not? What the fuck is wrong with California?

somehow the CCW crowd missed violent crime dropping to its lowest level in decades

Here in Texas, this drop corresponded with former Governor George W. Bush signing the CCW law into place. All of the sudden, criminals didn't know if the person they were about to mug would shoot them.

It's an old truism -- an armed society is a polite society.