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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Technically C++ (Score 1) 213

VS2013 seems to understand a bit more or C99, but that isn't because Microsoft would suddenly have started caring about their C compiler. Their C++ compiler got a bit of an upgrade wrt. more recent changes to the C++ standard, and the C compiler understanding a few C99 idioms is largely a side-effect/waste-product of that process.

Not quite. VS 2013 actually saw a bunch of C-specific C99 features such as designated initializers for structs. The main reason why this was done is because there are now quite a few popular open source libraries that use those features, and VC is the only compiler that cannot handle them, which made it a pain to port them to Windows.

Comment: Re:That's C code (Score 1) 213

stdio.h and cstdio are both valid in C++. However, there is a slight difference - cstdio is only guaranteed to define the identifiers that it provides in namespace std, while stdio.h makes the same guarantee only for the global namespace. In practice, they are usually both backed by the same header that does both, so you'll get both - but relying on that is non-portable. Since he doesn't use std:: to refer to those identifiers, "stdio.h" is the correct header for him to include.

Comment: Re:That's C code (Score 1) 213

"stdio.h" searches the directory containing the current source file first, then the include directories.

The standard itself doesn't have any notion of "directory containing the current source file" or "include directories", actually. It just says that "..." does some form of implementation-defined search, which, if it fails, falls back to <...>.

Comment: Re: That's C code (Score 1) 213

It's still not the same thing. In C, you can declare a function without specifying the argument types, but then define it with specific types in a different translation unit. In C++, the definition and the declaration must match - if you declare it as int foo(...), then you must also define it in the same way (which renders it effectively useless, since without any named arguments you won't have anything to pass to va_*).

Comment: Re:Measurements (Score 1) 365

by drinkypoo (#49624683) Attached to: The Programming Talent Myth

So which one is a "software development engineer"?

That depends on the country, and whether engineer means anything there.

Banging out code is the core of it, to be sure, but it's not what most of us spend our time doing, unless you throw in "design" and "testing" into "programming" - which is fine, but then we're back into people skills being part of it.

Right, but we've all worked for places that had people who made other people want to leave, but that you couldn't fire because they were indispensable because of their brilliance. It's not a good plan, but it is a common one.

Comment: Re:2-Butoxyethanol (Score 1) 269

And all it would take would be a home mechanic spilling a bottle of one of those products to get to that same parts-per-trillion levels in their own well water.

It would take a lot more than that, in all likelihood. It's usually not trivial for something you spill to wind up in your well unless you've got an open well, and you spill into it.

Comment: Re:Why isn't the Water Dept filtering the water? (Score 2) 269

The reason these chemicals are expensive to dispose of is that they are difficult to destroy by any means other than sweet, cleansing flame — and a whole hell of a lot of it. Throwing it in your campfire won't do it. Anything that can't be gotten out of your water by relatively simple means isn't filtered out by your municipal water department.

Comment: Re:Not BS. (Score 1) 139

by drinkypoo (#49622661) Attached to: How the NSA Converts Spoken Words Into Searchable Text

I said, "I have a question about a charge on my bill," and it correctly connected me to the chargeback section.

it eliminated all but the keywords, and got "question", "charge" and "bill". It may only be scanning for about 20 keywords at the most at any given prompt. That's a very easy job compared to natural speech recognition which actually gets all the words. You could get that on a chip 20 years ago.

Comment: Re:2-Butoxyethanol (Score 1) 269

That is an interesting and completely baseless theory

It's the very first thing I thought when I read the first-released list of fracking chemicals, years back.

If you have evidence to support it I imagine it would make for a pretty juicy story, though.

The list of chemicals they have announced supports it.

It's currently a problem of access to gigabits through punybaud. -- J. C. R. Licklider