Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Damn... (Score 5, Informative) 494 494

These neat little theories are always so so convenient to explain why everyone else is inferior. Yet Pakistan elected a woman as prime minister: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.... Perhaps the world is more complicated than these little theories suggest?

... the fine print being that she too was murdered (in 2007), with Al-Qaeda claiming responsibility. Arguing that Pakistan doesn't have a problem with militant islamist groups murdering women is a pretty tough sell

Comment: Re:Remind Me Again... (Score 1) 20 20

Why would anyone want to put a function definition in a class declaration? As I recall, defining a function in the class declaration automatically makes it inline, but that can also be achieved by declaring the function inline.

I also recall that inline functions can considerably increase the size of the resulting executable, so having large inline functions is a bad idea. If you define all your functions in the class declaration you'd end up with a very large program.

Declaring a function inline does not guarentee the function will actually be inlined -- the compiler decides whether it'll be inlined or not, and generally only small functions will be inlined, so if you're using a compiler made within the last decade, large inline functions are not a problem. What inline DOES do is modify the function's linkage specification, but that's a different matter.

Comment: Re:one of a kind (Score 1) 641 641

C++ might not end up being faster, but it certainly has no reason to be slower*. Well-written C++ and C should run at about the same speed. However, C++ has the advantage of allowing you to use high-level constructs when performance isn't as much of an issue.

* this is contingent on your compiler -- if you're using some compiler from a decade ago, some constructs (e.g. templates) may emit shockingly poor code

Comment: Re:Very relevent for small target embedded stuff. (Score 1) 641 641

Off topic: But I really don't know why so many people use C++ for non-embedded. It's perfectly valid for many - maybe most - applications to trade efficiency for safety, so use a different language. Why pick one that accommodates all the power of C then constantly beat on the developers with a giant list of coding guidelines? When the greatest attribute you seek in a developer is pedantry then something's wrong.

C++ is great anywhere you need performance. Numerical computing, scientific computing, image processing, computer vision, machine learning, etc -- all of these benefit greatly from C++, as you can use it as a high-level language in the non-performance critical parts, but at the same time, be able to optimize effectively in the places where it matters.

Comment: Re:C is very relevant in 2014, (Score 2) 641 641

So why isn't there a _standard_ library for safe string handling? (I know there may be several third party libraries) A library could abstract away the management of pointers to chars, things like growing and shrinking storage of the strings, creating string objects, destroying them, etc. without programmer ever touching a raw pointer to memory containing the string data.

Sounds like you're looking for C++ and std::string

Comment: Re:C is very relevant in 2014, (Score 1) 641 641

Actually, it's still possible to have some bugs if you improperly use auto_ptr and shared_ptr, etc, but it's still much better than the classic method of allocation.

Of course, you're not using auto_ptr anymore, right? It's been deprecated in C++11, and there's little to no reason to use it in favor of unique_ptr. auto_ptr was the attempt at implementing unique_ptr semantics prior to having rvalue references as part of the language. As for the possible pitfalls... shared_ptr can still fall prey to cyclical dependencies, but unique_ptr is very good for enforcing ownership semantics.

Comment: Re:List the STL? Seriously? (Score 1) 479 479

Of course, the STL was written by Stepanov before C++ was standardized. What the interviewer probably meant to ask about is the C++ standard library, which is similar but different. Or maybe they really were asking about the STL, in which case I wholeheartedly agree that bullets were dodged.

Comment: Re:No trouble finding single player games.... (Score 1) 292 292

Most of those games you quoted are very old and OP has probably played them all and is looking for something new.

Wasteland 2 comes out this Friday (9/19) and Pillars of Eternity is still in Beta. Unless you've got a time machine that's about as new as it gets.

"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -- George Carlin