4 ms·
Agree with both parents. "Simple" to me means that the code does exactly what I ask: no more, no less. For better or for worse. No behind-the-scenes magic (g
by JonFish85 13y ago
Agree with both parents. "Simple" to me means that the code does exactly what I ask: no more, no less. For better or for worse. No behind-the-scenes magic (garbage collection, etc). I know exactly how much memory I am using, where it's allocated, and how it's passed around. Again, for better or for worse. With great power comes great responsibility!
- pjmlp 13y agoDo you also know all the undefined and unspecified use cases of the standard? http://de.slideshare.net/olvemaudal/deep-c http://de.slideshare.net/olvemaudal/deep-c
- anon1385 13y ago>No behind-the-scenes magic I assume you never compile with optimisations turned on then?
- zxcdw 13y agoHas very little to do with the language, apart from what undefined and platform dependent behavior allow the compiler to trick around. Of course, if the compiler goes nuts or is buggy, anything can happen "behind the scenes", but as far as I'm aware, this has nothing to do with the language as specified in the standard.
- ctdonath 13y agoThe problem is when what you ask for is incompatible with how it's done. Hence me today observing a price field in a record containing $9.500000000000000000002, knowing that making the obvious problem there "easy" will result in painful data manipulations elsewhere, and remembering that under certain conditions a Boolean can be neither true nor false. Asking a binary computer to handle non binary data just plain gets weird sometimes.