old hacker...low tolerance
-
@Chris-Kawa Oh, no, you are against the Great Reset.
One thing I do agree with you is: it makes more sense to make C++ better than to invent more other languages.
For example, I used to use a lot of Fortran. If C++ has efficient multi-dimensional array(will have in 23), Fortran can be dropped easily. -
The sad part for me is that a bunch of those new languages popping up are made by current or former C++ standard committee members, which sounds like "oh no, it's too hard, I'll make my own". And it's not even a joint effort. Everyone wants to be the inventor of the next big thing. I mean I don't mind people wasting time. It's their time to waste. It's just those are the people who are actually in a position to do something impactful. I wish they would've spent that time more productive for the sake of all of us.
-
@Chris-Kawa Actually not bad if they can come up with some good ideas.
-
-
-
-
-
-
@mzimmers said in old hacker...low tolerance:
Right...and robots will eliminate the need for human labor in 10 years. signed, a lot of smart people c. 1960.
Well, those idiots on the left coast (SanFransisco) just approved the use of "lethal force" robots against civilians. Yet another step closer to sky-net, but what do those of us wearing tin-foil hats know, right?
-
@Kent-Dorfman When were weapons not used against civilians? The latest technology has always been used for weapons if possible in the history. The first computer was made to calculate the trajectory of projectiles. The nuclear energy was first applied for a bomb against civilians. I recently watched Hiroshima in youtube and it is a good movie.
-
-
@JonB said in old hacker...low tolerance:
Programming (languages, humans writing code) will be over in 20 (50?) years. Discuss.
sure, same as self driving cars, just right around to corner!
-
Looks like I'm a little late to the party about cppfront. In general, I like some of the idea. There's recently been some talks (some by Herb himself) that passing argument by const reference is not always the most performant way to do it. You would actually need 3 different version of the same function for best performance. If you have two parameters that need to be optimized this way you'd have to write every combination of those, i.e. 9 different version. His C++ syntax 2 would solve this problem. That's the part I like. Concerning interoperability his approach is way superior to Carbon. Within the same file you can mix syntax 1 and syntax 2 if you are using cppfront as a compiler. This means as long as cppfront is your compiler you can still write classic C++ code and call functions written in syntax 2. There is no extra interoperability layer you have to write or be concerned with. Someone already mentioned that experts in C++ would need to know syntax 1 & 2 which is an extra burden added. Understanding syntax 2 at will tell you about the pitfalls when using syntax 1. Only problem with cppfront: I don't particularly like the syntax. Though for some of the features I might still be persuaded to swallow the pill and switch over if this would become standard.
-
@mzimmers said in old hacker...low tolerance:
Let's all quit, move to Florida and go golfing.
I retired some years ago (never been busier, though), I would not move to the USA, but the Caribbean looks interesting.
Especially when they are turning their backs on the dollar system (which turned its back on them years ago).
https://www.stvincenttimes.com/st-kitts-nevis-to-make-bitcoin-cash-legal-tender-by-march-2023/
