mreiland

48 ms·

511.
by mreiland 12y ago
bam, nailed that shit, especially the point about performance costs inherent in a feature set rather than in a language. I just didn't want to continue a conversation with someone who thinks adjusting the age old "optimizations wi
512.
by mreiland 12y ago
The idea that scientists are human with their own bias isn't relevant in a thread about a scientific claim that the scientists have started backing off of once more examination occured? No, you downvoted because you're a dumbass,
513.
by mreiland 12y ago
> If you want all the advantages of C++ compilers, you can write a backend for the language's compiler that generates C++. Well it sounds as if it's as simple as being able to take advantage of optimizations to meet or beat C++
514.
by mreiland 12y ago
C++ actually allows for type abstraction in a way that most mainstream languages don't. There's definitely an argument for the expressiveness of the language, but what you're talking about is more of a mechanical aspect of th
515.
by mreiland 12y ago
No I'm not, those new-fangled compilers with that fancy ass "think about performance up front" language doesn't have the umpteen years and billions of dollars worth of research put into it the way C++ has.
516.
by mreiland 12y ago
Not really. Probably the strongest point of C++, besides its performance, is its ability to interact with C easily and efficiently. A huge amount of C++'s complexity comes from this requirement, but the benefits are enormous. It'
517.
by mreiland 12y ago
> There simply is no non-OOP way to implement these things. Depending on your specific definition of OOP. I suspect what the author is talking about is the high level of coupling that occurred in a looooot of 90's/early 2000&#x
518.
by mreiland 12y ago
I'm sorry you're getting downvoted by blind dumbasses, nothing you said was unreasonable, they just took it to somehow be a criticism of science and went with it.
519.
by mreiland 12y ago
> No, that's like saying you need a completely different set of algorithms because you changed the overall speed of your computer components up or down. yes? Why are you presenting that as a ridiculous scenario? The way you optimiz
520.
by mreiland 12y ago
maybe in happy happy fun fun land where ideals are reality. Like it or not, economic power is power in our society, and a higher salary is more inclined to having a higher economic power. It matters to you as well.
521.
by mreiland 12y ago
Pretty much every competitor I've ever seen for C/C++ has always made the same claim: with X optimization that C/C++ can't do, we can eventually meet or beat C/C++. It's never actually came true in the general
522.
by mreiland 12y ago
We've been hearing that statement for atleast the last 15 years. Is it anymore true now than it was then? The only thing that's caused people to start worrying about efficiency has been social: mobility and environmental concern
523.
by mreiland 12y ago
2 problems with your comment. 1. 'baggage' is not a synonym for 'rights' (legal? social?) 2. While an Atheist is necessarily a non-believer, a non-believer is not necessarily an Atheist. Furthermore, you tell people you&
524.
by mreiland 12y ago
I'm glad you agree that it's a weak argument. It also just happens to be the argument you made in reverse. That was actually the point.
525.
by mreiland 12y ago
It doesn't take a toxic environment, only a single person wanting to be a bully.
526.
by mreiland 12y ago
2 things 1. I never said I've had unpleasant experiences with code reviews, I said they're too often wielded as a bullying tactic. This is something that can be recognized without actually being a part of the bullying tactic. Fu
527.
by mreiland 12y ago
It's because I'm ok with being blunt about my opinion. There can be no mistake about how I perceived your pushing an agenda in a thread involving someone's severe depression. You on the other hand, are simply passive aggress
528.
by mreiland 12y ago
Then you deal with the baggage that comes from such a label, and clarifying that you're a 'secular humanist' doesn't give you the right to expect to avoid that baggage.
529.
by mreiland 12y ago
By definition you can't learn about religion either because the only thing required for religion is to believe in it. You are misunderstanding his point because it infringes upon how you self-identify. Perspective is weird like that s
530.
by mreiland 12y ago
That's pretty much always been my opinion on code reviews. They're too often wielded as a bullying tactic.
531.
by mreiland 12y ago
It depends on what they use the movements for. If it allows me to navigate more things with a single hand without me looking like a white man trying to boogy down, then I'm all for it. edit: plus, if they really have strong kindle&#x2
532.
by mreiland 12y ago
That isn't what he was saying at all
533.
by mreiland 12y ago
That's untrue, and for you to make that claim is ridiculous, but it does mean this conversation is no longer worth engaging in.
534.
by mreiland 12y ago
You're missing Saraid's point.
535.
by mreiland 12y ago
His reply was in the context of you labeling yourself an atheist. Perhaps you should avoid that term in the future.
536.
by mreiland 12y ago
To answer 4: Human beings perceive things through emotion, so anything that cause a perspective shift that enables them to deal with their emotions/the situation in a more positive manner helps them cope, be that getting religion, losi
537.
by mreiland 12y ago
He didn't say it was understandable, he said he "wasn't completely against it". That is not the same thing by far. But the point is that he's misunderstanding, the guideline he posted was the following: > Avoid
538.
by mreiland 12y ago
I didn't read all of his examples, but I read a few. I'm confused by his issue with calling virtual functions from the constructor. Because of the order in which C++ calls the constructors in a base/parent class hierarchy du
539.
by mreiland 12y ago
I dislike fasterisking.
540.
by mreiland 12y ago
lmao, "use-of-space conflict"

More ›