C++ rewards good design but brutally punishes poor designs.
You hit the nail on the head, somewhere in the early 90's, language vendors stopped claiming "Our language supports OO concepts" and started claiming "Our language is OO".
The first C++ compiler I used professionally was Wacom's (circa 1991). Back then the Watcom C++ extensions were not part of the language, they were implemented with a bunch of C macros pulled in with include files, the macros themselves were riddled with goto (another macro) statements. I still have nightmares....
The fact is any general purpose language can be used to implement an OO design because OO is not about language features, it's a design methodology, or at least that's what I was taught when studying for my CS degree in the late 80's. As my smalltalk lecturer pointed out at the time, most of the examples in K&R's "The C language" are also great examples of OO design that were written long before the term OO was invented.
Disclaimer: These days I spend much more time tying spaghetti balls with different flavoured source together than I do trying to untangle the individual gordian knots.
Cannot fathom why your post id marked redundant, OT maybe, but redundant?
Maybe they don't get the 'lazy evaluation' part if they've never dabbled in functional programming
"Lazy evaluation" is an optimization technique for evaluating Boolean expressions, I've never heard of a programming language that doesn't use it by default
Here's a random conundrum for you - why is February the hottest month in Melbourne when the summer solstice in is December?
How about we get politics out of science and rely on the scientific method to determine if "Global Warming" is real or not.
If we did that then this debate would have ended in 1958 when spectrographs designed for heat seeking missiles became good enough to separate CO2 and H2O absorption lines. It was previously assumed they overlapped but the new spectrographs showed they were interlaced.
...Someone from the back row shouts out "Because our AdSense profile has determined you were visiting websites about cigarettes recently, your health insurance premium has gone up by 5% and you will probably die slightly sooner. Remember, [i]f you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place!"
Is it cynicism if you're just using a Markov chain to predict what other Slashdotters will say?
(Although obviously this is auto insurance, so I'm sure someone can translate the threat appropriately.)
I'm all for the Pope telling his followers how to be better people, and not say unnecessary things that are patently offensive to other people, like "Fuck the Pope". That's kind of the point of religion, now, isn't it?
Well, he could have said it better. If I were the Pope (yeah, like that's ever going to happen!) I would have said something like this:
"Don't be rude to others. Looking for ways to intentionally offend, just for the sake of offense, is not the way of Christ. As Christians we are called to be ambassadors for Christ. Ambassadors do not look for ways to offends those to whom they are sent. At the same time, the Lord also commanded us to turn the other cheek. Even more, He told us that we must pray for those who persecute us. If we are commanded to pray for our persecutors, surely we can turn the other cheek and pray for those who make petty insults of our cherished beliefs!"
*Sigh* Apparently, even the Pope could stand to have a few lessons on how to be a good Christian.
If only I had mod points, I'd mod you up, sir or madam. At least you understand what this belief is supposed to advocate, whether or not you personally practice it.
I for one am tired of the government from being slowed by locks whenever they need to find a terrorist suspect, I think the government needs a master key that can open any lock, and everyone combination lock needs to have a master unlock code to unlock it.
Since the master keys would only be available to a few thousand (ok, maybe a few hundred thousand) law enforcement personnel, I fail to see how the "bad guys" would ever get access to them. The government has our best interests at heart, and they carefully screen employees to ensure that none of them are the "bad guys".
I appreciate your sarcasm.