Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

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

by GiganticLyingMouth (#49540693) Attached to: Qt Creator 3.4.0 Released

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

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.

Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage. -- Lazarus Long