Are anonymous namespaces really that obscure? They're pretty bog-standard where I work, anyway. Don't think I've ever seen a .cc file more than a couple hundred lines that didn't have one for various helper functions.
No, neither C nor C++ supports using `static` to add internal linkage to a struct type or type alias. (Evidence: https://godbolt.org/z/fnevfv4hr , see also cppreference.)
In C++, we need some way to give a type internal linkage so that we can have
namespace {
struct S { static int mv; int f(); };
}
int S::f() { return 1; }
int S::mv = 1;
in one translation unit and the-same-thing-but-with-2-instead-of-1 in another translation unit. Linkage matters to `S::f` and `S::mv`, which would otherwise end up exposed to the world and cause multiply-defined-symbol errors at link time. In C, we can't have member functions or static data members, so (unless I'm missing something) there's no real physical (as opposed to philosophical) reason for a C programmer to care what linkage their types have.
If C did support internal-linkage types, I do think it would make sense to support writing simply
static struct S { ~~~~ };
instead of C++'s weird hack with the (C++-only) `namespace` keyword.
Why did C++ decide to use unnamed namespaces instead of `static struct S { ~~~~ }`? According to Stroustrup's "The Design and Evolution of C++" ("D&E"), the original idea was to separate the two meanings of `static` — unnamed namespaces would take over all the responsibilities related to internal linkage, leaving `static` responsible only for function-local statics and static members. C++98 actually deprecated the use of `static` for internal linkage — but that deprecation was reversed (thank goodness) in C++11, and I imagine most C++ programmers are unaware that such a thing ever happened.
In C a type doesn't produce any symbols, so it can't be affected by linkage. I was indeed talking about declaring the instantiation of the classes with static in C++.
You can pretty much treat a namespace as a static class. It's very, very much not a static class, but it mostly behaves like one. Unless you use static fields in a namespace and then your program blows up because that field is TU-static, not global.
Exhaustion is absolutely the first word that comes to mind for me. Even when I'm not using it myself, I'm exhausted of all the oxygen it takes up in the room
Sure; I think his point was that people much less likely to even notice/acknowledge the slide towards authoritarianism when their own individual experience isn't changing much. Not that it changes authoritarianism's moral standing.
While it's definitely more complicated than necessary, and silly that the game doesn't explain it at all, it also... doesn't really seem that complicated? Certainly not enough to live up to the amount of text spent building it up, or the amount of text explaining it, for that matter. You've got some offense and defense stats, each card draws a random number from 0 to its applicable stat (determined by type), highest number wins.
From my experience, it's a deeply frustrating minigame because: it's not well-explained at all, there's a mandatory play sequence to advance the story, and the rewards for playing Tetra Master are minimal.
Compare that to FF8's Triple Triad, which is strictly optional but immensely useful (i.e., game-breaking) if you know what you're doing.
Yes, as I try to explain in the article (voluntary written in the sense of an archeologic exploration) the main point of frustration is the lack of explanation. Trying to deduce everything was hard, when I was 10 :)
For the executive, sure. Not for the impact of the overall incentive structure on the trajectory of the business. Which is what this discussion is about.
The root comment this thread is in reply to had the implication that people are only acting this way because of an inaccurate idea of how strict the legal obligations are, and the other comments are about how that’s obviously not the only force producing the current outcome
Yeah, obviously that's not "the only force producing this outcome." Nobody claimed it was.
But it's important for founders to understand they are not legally obligated to do any specific thing for their shareholders. It is their responsibility to act morally. Yes, there are other incentives and forces at play. "Legal obligation" is not the cop-out excuse that executives claim it is.
Engineering blogger's love of parroting the titles of famous papers/articles (unreasonable effectiveness..., all you need is..., ... Considered harmful, etc) has always been lightly annoying to me
With software engineering, every single thing in the 2010s had "syntactic sugar" and "sane defaults". I still get a slight blood pressure spike whenever someone uses either of those terms.
Sure, I suppose... The strange leap you're making is in the assumption that Internet memes are somehow inherently on the side of open-mindedness. Memes can be, and constantly are, absolutely used as weapons of propaganda, both intentionally and unwittingly. I'd say in general that's the rule, not the exception, at least where anything vaguely political or cultural is involved.
Thanks. Yes it is strange. I do accept there's some overlap between propaganda and memeing. Yet whatever the intentions (or paygrade, or artistic ability) of the author of a meme, the fact remains that once it is posted he has no control over its destiny. So ultimately it is the funniest/most beautiful/salutary/plausible memes that get refined and selected for, i.e. which supply the strongest signal, and which inspire new memes in turn.
reply