See, this is what happened to all the Atlantean artifacts, except theirs had to be plugged in to not disintegrate ;)

This must be a plot in some extant sci-fi novel already, right? I suppose there's similarities in Ringworld.

None of the EVs are actually price-competitive at purchase time without a big rebate. A gasser that fulfills the same function, probably with a little less acceleration but otherwise equivalent, is still cheaper. Your full-size SUV will cost significantly more or have very crap range.

There was a hybrid Durango, but it cost $85k and Dodge terminated it for lack of interest. No shit, huh? I can't imagine who wouldn't want to pay Viper prices for a sluggish SUV.

On the other hand, the Denali's name is a barely-transposed acronym. Get a smaller car.

The question was about repeatability of results, not perfect precision - the latter is orthogonal (though, as it is usually done in software, it will also solve the repeatability problem). For many real-world applications, you don't need perfect precision so long as you can properly account for the margin of error.

No, no you didn't address why vnc doesn't cover those use cases. You made some excuses, but it works fine in most of them, or is almost adequate. I've been running X remotely since before vnc existed. You have no idea whatsoever what I've done, and I have plenty of perspective on the way X remoting is used. Further, I read your shitty comment, and I thought it was stupid but I chose to ignore the parts I thought were stupid and simply write a simpler comment that explained precisely what the problem was. But since you're being such a whiny little baby about this, let's go ahead and go back and see what you said, and why it is stupid. And in fact, it will also reveal why this comment of yours is stupid, and hopefully establish a pattern of stupidity so that when I call you an idiot I am modded insightful instead of troll or flamebait.

Let's begin.

This sentence is not only tortured, but ignorant. It's ignorant for a number of reasons, but only one is important: you can run multiple VNC client sessions on a single machine and, if your window management system permits it, tile them so that you can see them all at once.

Also, what the actual fuck? Are they supposed to be looking at it all, or perhaps part of it, on screens which are behind them? I suppose they could install a mirror above their primary display for this purpose.

Now, on to the reason why this comment that I am replying to is stupid: I did in fact address your comment in my comment, proving beyond any doubt to anyone with more than two neurons to spark against one another that I did read your blather. I said, and I quote, "Also, there's no reason you couldn't have a single-window vnc-like tool." You went on to complain that I apparently didn't read your comment after I addressed it. If your reading comprehension skills had progressed beyond Hop on Pop then perhaps you would have recognized this fact, and saved me the trouble of chastising you again.

In summary, take your meds, fucko.

I'm sorry, did you catch your knickers in the paper shredder that morning?

If I understand you right, the problem with transparent coroutines as you describe them is that they require pervasive support from every single language you have anywhere on your call stack to work. It's all well and good if everything is in your language, but what if you call into a C library which then calls you back? Given the recent trend towards asynchrony in general, this is a very common pattern, and in some cases simply unavoidable (e.g. on WinRT, many core APIs are async only, like sockets).

The nice thing with yield/await and explicit continuations is precisely that it doesn't require any mucking around with how the regular stack works, and so it's compatible with any promise-based or callback-based scheme across any two languages.

If I did not understand correctly, then can you elaborate on the difference between what you want, and yield/await?

Ironically enough, it was the desire to ease porting of some popular open source libraries that have gotten to rely on C99 features. I don't know the full list, but the one that was specifically named on VC blog (and that should now compile with no modifications) is ffmpeg.

Not all people live in a .NET world.

And, well, why not?

jQuery is about JavaScript running on the server side - in the browser. Node.js is about JavaScript running on the server - instead of C#/ASP.NET. The "event-driven, non-blocking I/O model" basically means that all APIs that are normally blocking are instead done asynchronously, with you having to provide a completion callback every time you call one - so threads are never blocked waiting for I/O. For a C# developer, this is basically very similar to all the new stuff about System.Threading.Tasks and async/await in .NET 4 and 4.5, and specifically support for the latter in ASP.NET.

I believe that was implemented somewhere around Visual C++ 1.0, but has somehow regressed since then. Probably because they didn't have any unit tests back then.

The cost of round trips between client and server are still way too high for a lot of stuff, especially when you want smooth UI. Remember those horrible forms which reloaded the page (to show a different set of controls) when you changed selection in some combobox?

Because Tesla actually has a 5.4 rating, while Ford and GM do not?

(is it supposed to be a trick question?)

Dynamically stack-allocating arrays is indeed easy, which is why this feature is also being standardized in C++14. The problem with C99 VLAs is that they are far more than that - you also have things like VLA typedefs (which should remember the size at the point of the typedef, even if the expression that defined it changes later), or parameter arrays where their size is specified by another parameter. Also, the abomination that is dynamic sizeof.

The compiler itself is really ancient. Consider this: gcc 1.0 was released in 1987; Microsoft C was released in 1983, and that was built on top of an even older third-party codebase that was purchased back then. It probably changed a lot since then, like gcc did, but all legacy codebases of that size acquire a lot of legacy cruft (hence why Apple decided to stop mucking around with gcc and just do Clang from scratch). I don't know much about current VC code, but one piece of information that the team has shared publicly is that the front-end doesn't actually operate on an AST, but is rather a multipass process-as-you-parse thing, which makes a great many modern C++ features like constexpr very costly to implement.

Still no feature request. I'm disappointed.

If there is one in the tracker and it gets over 100 votes, I'll personally implement it. It's going to appear once you open a project and ask, "It looks like you're trying to do some work. Would you like to be distracted?". If you say yes, it'll open Slashdot in a Visual Studio tab. ~

It is undefined behavior in all conformant C89 compilers, including VC. Undefined behavior, by defnition, is any kind of behavior, including "it works as I expected it to".