Le 18.10.2013 17:54, Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
On 10/17/2013 8:31 PM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
Le 17.10.2013 21:57, Miles Fidelman a écrit :
berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
Le 16.10.2013 17:51, Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
I only know few people who actually likes them :)
I liked them too, at a time, but since I can now use standard
smart
pointers in C++, I tend to avoid them. I had so much troubles
with
them,
so now I only use them for polymorphism and sometimes RTTI.
I hope that someday references will become usable in standard
containers... (I think they are not because of technical
problems,
but I
do not know a lot about that. C++ is easy to learn, but hard to
master.)
Good design and code structure eliminates most pointer problems;
proper testing will get the rest. Smart pointers are nice, but
in
real time processing they are an additional overhead (and an
unknown
one at that since you don't know the underlying libraries).
Depends on the smart pointer. shared_ptr indeed have a runtime
cost,
since it maintains additional data, but unique_ptr does not,
afaik,
it is made from pure templates, so only compilation-time cost.
You guys should love LISP - it's pointers all the way down. :-)
I do not really like pointers anymore, and this is why I like smart
pointers ;)
So, what you name an OS is only drivers+kernel? If so, then ok.
But
some people consider that it includes various other tools which
does
not require hardware accesses. I spoke about graphical
applications,
and you disagree. Matter of opinion, or maybe I did not used the
good
ones, I do not know.
So, what about dpkg in debian? Is it a part of the OS? Is not it a
ring 3 program? As for tar or shell?
Boy do you like to raise issues that go into semantic grey areas
:-)
Not specially, but, to say that C has been made to build OSes only,
you
then have to determine what is an OS to make the previous statement
useful. For that, I simply searched 3 different sources on the web,
and
all of them said that simple applications are part of the OS.
Applications like file browsers and terminal emulators.
Without using the same words for the same concepts, we can never
understand the other :)
Yes, and you can also search the web and find people claim that the
Holocost never happened, Global Warming is a myth and the Earth is
the
center of the universe.
Just because it's in the internet does not mean it is so. The key is
to find it from RELIABLE resources.
You know that it is the same for you? I am not completely stupid, it is
not because I will read something somewhere that I'll trust it. When I
read something, I have the same process: comparing it to other sources,
and then thinking about it.
The point is, that I can hardly quote the French dictionary on this
mailing list, and I do not feel the need of buying such resources
written in English, since I do not like at the moment in an
English-speaking country.
Now, more useful than saying that my sources are not reliable, could
you provide your owns? Some that I can check, of course. But which are
not on the Internet, since they are not reliable. Will be pretty hard,
right?
No, but I do understand why comparing text is slower than integers
on
x86 computers. Because I know that an int can be stored into one
word, which can be compared with only one instruction, while the
text
will imply to compare more than one word, which is indeed slower.
And
it can even become worse when the text is not an ascii one.
So I can use that understanding to know why I often avoid to use
text
as keys. But it happens that sometimes the more problematic cost
is
not the speed but the memory, and so sometimes I'll use text as
keys
anyway.
Knowing what is the word's size of the SQL server is not needed to
make things work, but it is helps to make it working faster.
Instead
of requiring to buy more hardware.
On the other hand, I could say that building SQL requests is not
my
job, and to left it to specialists which will be experts of the
specific hardware + specific SQL engine used to build better
requests. They will indeed build better than I can actually, but
it
have a time overhead and require to hire specialists, so higher
price
which may or may not be possible.
Seems to me that you're more right on with your first statement.
How
can one not consider building SQL requests as part of a
programmer's
repertoire, in this day and age?
I agree, it is part of programmer's job. But building a bad SQL
request
is easy, and it can make an application unusable in real conditions
when
it worked fine while programming and testing.
Proper testing includes simulating "real conditions".
Simulating real conditions is possible, in theory. In practice, I doubt
it. Otherwise, applications would not have any bug discovered after the
release.
Some people told me to never underestimate the fact that users can do
things you will not think they would do. I tend to trust those guys,
since I have seen users doing very strange things with both their
hardware and software. In those users, I include people who write
softwares and sysadmins.
Windows actually provides a stable environment, very good
programming
tools ( visual studio is a really good IDE ), and when you write for
it,
you know that most computers will be able to run your program.
LOL.
I guess I should have spoken about desktop computers. Not precise
enough, I apologize.
If you laugh for windows stability, I speak about recent ones. And,
since you will probably say you have seen them crashing, I can show you
a question I have written on the list recently, where an update of
Debian made my system not bootable, and even moving back the kernel did
not fixed the problem. tsc clock or something like that.
I have also seen more than one message speaking about Xorg's crashes,
and have experienced some undesired behaviors too.
Perfect softwares are myths.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/64858b3936f827cf5a2d85924de0a...@neutralite.org
