Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

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

by GiganticLyingMouth (#48559685) Attached to: How Relevant is C in 2014?

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

by GiganticLyingMouth (#48557657) Attached to: How Relevant is C in 2014?

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

by GiganticLyingMouth (#48557601) Attached to: How Relevant is C in 2014?

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

by GiganticLyingMouth (#48557497) Attached to: How Relevant is C in 2014?

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

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

by GiganticLyingMouth (#47920799) Attached to: The Growing Illusion of Single Player Gaming

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.

Comment: Re:Programming: You're doing it completely wrong (Score 1) 120

lambdas can be faster than say, function pointers, mostly because the compiler can have more information about pointer aliasing. They should be a wash speed-wise relative to loops. Also, you say functors, which can take a few forms; this can be a callable object (e.g. a struct with its operator() overloaded, no templates needed), a stored lambda function, or a std::function object (e.g. as created through std::bind, lambdas, etc). They all look rather different; do you find all of them unreadable? Not all of them require 'enormous' header files

It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65)

Working...