How dare you get in the way of my fat ass in my fat-ass SUV. Almost spill my capuccino that I bought at the drive-thru because I couldn't get my fat ass off the car.
You make it sound like the construction of US cities were not at all lobbied by the auto industry back in the day and that urban sprawl was exclusively people's choice.
I recently started a pet project using modules in MSVC, the compiler that at present has best support for modules, and ran into a compiler bug where it didn't know how to compile and asked me to "change the code around this line".
So no, modules aren't even here, let alone to stay.
Never mind using modules in an actual project when I could repro a bug so easily. The people preaching modules must not be using them seriously, or otherwise I simply do not understand what weed they are smoking. I would very much appreciate to stand corrected, however.
I still hope that modules become mature and safe for production code. Initially I coded in C/C++ and this header #include/#ifndef approach seemed OK at that time. But after using other programming languages, this approach started to feel too boilerplate and archaic. No sane programming language should require a duplication in order to export something (for example, the full function and its prototype), you should write something once and easily export.
> No sane programming language should require a duplication in order to export something (for example, the full function and its prototype)
You are spoiled by the explosive growth of open source and the ease of accessing source code. Lots of closed source commercial libraries provide some .h files and a .so file. And even when open source, when you install a library from a package from a distribution or just a tarball, it usually installs some .h files and a .so file.
The separation between interface and implementation into separate files was a good idea. The idea seemed to be going out of vogue but it’s still a good idea.
> Lots of closed source commercial libraries provide some .h files and a .so file.
I'm mostly talking about modules for internal implementation, which is likely to be the bulk of the exports. Yes, it's understandable that for dll / so files exporting something for external executables is more complicated also because of ABI compatibility concerns (we use things like extern "C"). So, yes header approach might be justified in this case, but as I stated, such exports are probably a fraction of all exports (if they are needed at all). I'll still prefer modules when it's possible to avoid them.
In most situations, auto-generating the equivalent of .h files for a library based on export statements in the source code would be fine and a useful simplification.
> The separation between interface and implementation into separate files was a good idea. The idea seemed to be going out of vogue but it’s still a good idea.
However as soon as you do C++ that goes away. With C++ you need implementation of templates available to the consumer (except cases with limited set of types where you can extern them), wmin many cases you get many small functions (basic operator implementations, begin()/end() for iterators in all variations etc.) which benefit from inking, thus need to be in the header.
Oh and did I mention class declarations tonthe the class size ... or more generic and even with plain C: As soon as the client should know about the size of a type (for being able to allocate it, have an array of those etc) you can't provide the size by itself, but you have to provide the full type declaration with all types down the rabbit hole. Till you somewhere introduce a pointer to opaque type indirection.
And then there macros ...
Modules attempt to do that better, by providing just the interface in a file. But hey, C++ standard doesn't "know" about those, so module interface files aren't a portable thing ...
I think everyone hopes/hoped for a sane and useful version of modules, one that would provide substantial improvements to compilation speed and make things like packaging libraries and dealing with dependencies a lot more sane.
The version of modules that got standardized is anything but that. It's an incredibly convoluted mess that requires an enormous amount of effort for little benefit.
> It's an incredibly convoluted mess that requires an enormous amount of effort for little benefit.
I'd say C++ as a whole is a complete mess. While it's powerful (including OOP), it's complicated and inconsistent language with a lot of historical baggage (40+ years). That's why people and companies still search for (or even already use) viable replacements for C++, such as Rust, Zig, etc.
Modules are still in the early adoptor phase - despite 3 years. there are unfortunately bugs, and we still need people to write the "best practices for C++ modules" books. Everyone who has use them overall says they are good things and worth learning, but there is a lot about using them well that we haven't figured out.
This is untrue. The MS Office team is using a non-standard MSVC compiler flag that turns standard #include into header units, which treats those header files in a way similar to precompiled header files. This requires no changes to source code, except for some corner cases they mention in that very blog post to work around some compiler quirks.
That is not the same as using modules, which they have not done.
I'm afraid things will continue very much sucking for a long time and will still be less-than even when they become broadly supported since sepples programmers, being real programmers™, are not entitled to have nice things.
You're advocating for the wrong thing. Advocate to ban targeted advertising or demand that social media feeds be transparent. Don't advocate for banning VPNs from anyone who does not want to submit an ID to a company that will be breached less than a year later, or any kind of client-side measure; that's ineffective towards the goal you are trying to accomplish, and has so many other negative side effects that the whole thing is just stupid.
Precisely this. OP could have been more effective in their message by avoiding the sarcasm. The end game is censorship, not protecting children or whatever.
Yes, but that's not a dichotomy. Languages like Java have function declare what exceptions they throw, and the caller must either catch it or also declare that it throws it. Gets cumbersome quickly, but I believe it's for the best to encode exceptions at the type system.
A "lagniappe" is a bonus, so the videos are just bonus tracks.
(if you want an exercise with them, however, attempt to figure out by which means the folks depicted in which video make a living:
a) by what they do "gur guvatf jr yvxr qba'g pbfg n ybg bs zbarl"
b) by what they own "ubzvrf ba ybpx sbe vafvqre genqvat"
c) by what they know "V chg gur BT va 5.0 TCN"
I guess my question would be: does he actually patronise a specialty beer shop, or does he just aleatorically sample from the vending machines near his block? (I also see some non-beer beverages...)
With a birthright caste, you're stuck. Even if you make a lot of money, you're still an untouchable.
In the US, if you make a lot of money, you can become upper class, even if you still have some "rough edges." I actually know a number of folks that have done exactly that.
I also know folks that have done the opposite. Started off on top of the heap, and ended up skint.
We definitely have strata. Hollywood stars represent an interesting one. They are sort of what folks aspire to be, but they are nowhere near the top of the heap.
In the UK, Elon Musk would never be a toff; no matter how much he has, but in the US, he's King of the Hill.
I guess that's where we part ways: just as the US is the world's richest 3rd* world country, I'd call ERM the richest upper-middle-class person in the US, but not exactly upper-class...
(just as a datum point: ERM is the opposite of an éminence grise, in just about any of its senses)
* in the economic sense. In the political sense, by definition the US is 1st world [after what happened to Yugoslavia (former leader of the non-aligned movement) I'm surprised Carney is brave enough to attempt to revive a "2nd World" ... surprised; but pleased!].
Compare: SV founders (including "broligarchs"(?)) will never say "cowboys" in vain, but East Coast financiers might :)
(How familiar are you with 1990s-2010s neo-hipsters?)
Edit: MPAA^W AMPAS will never think secret thoughts of "British upper middle class theatre" outside the occasional hire (for "diversity", these days). Is that why PG and Trevor moved to the UK ;)?
It's not reactionary centrism, but it's also not progressive centrism.. to always say never!
Q. How did the hipster wind up in the emergency room?
A. He fired his 3D-printed gun before it was cool. )
Not sure what you're getting at with cowboys, for me the intersection with SV is/was Gibson's console cowboy — "In the bars [Case had] frequented as a cowboy hotshot, the elite stance involved a certain relaxed contempt for the flesh. The body was meat. Case fell into the prison of his own flesh."
What is the opposite of relentless searching for the frontier? cottage-core?
hmmm: an arbitrary finite automaton can be decomposed into a collection of edges; can we decompose a reasonable philosophy into a collection of memes/greentexts/whatever the kids are doing these days?
(for that matter, I just assume the modal HN'er is ~13 now, but maybe that's an artifact of how the front page dynamic goldfishes the conversation?)
> I'd seen posters from the now fairly infamous 4chan /pol/, or Politics, board raiding other parts of the website in character as minorities or leftists before.
Seems like the idea that your (our?) concept of bigotry could be profoundly misguided could be the real unspeakable..
Have you read Lawrence of Arabia recently?
The dividing line maybe: I see --(well, viscerally) whom you may label-- bigots as adults (who may or may not require medical intervention); and you-- as children? To help you out on the trolling, I'm usually triggered by upper-middle class takes on Christ, like this guy:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46733577
LoA, I'm very ashamed to say, is in the category of: seen the inflight movie, but not even read "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" — should I remedy this sin of omission?
Jack and Leopold may well be centrist; I know all the thinkbois mostly by reputation, not as primary sources! (Indeed, I'm pretty sure I know who Jack must be, despite having bailed on his platform in its first year, but Leopold doesn't even ring a bell, unless he goes by a different handle?)
Here's my attempt to tl;dr my concept:
Soft bigotry: I know better than my neighbour how to live, so I deserve all sorts of good things. (Koerner notes that the way to spot social darwinists is that they're incessantly wringing their hands that the "unfit" are —somehow— outreproducing the "fit")
Hard bigotry: I know better than my neighbour how to live, so they deserve all sorts of bad things. ("patriots" get to kill "lunatics" in the street)
Now, I do believe some people do in fact know better than others how to live (unsurprisingly, I place myself among the former :-); I just also believe example works better than extortion as a means of proselytisation. (fishers of men should refrain from dynamiting the lake?)
Does the "kidult" have a large coupling constant with "growing old is obligatory; growing up is optional"?
Which M-H scales?
I'm surprised not to have run across alephnerd recently wrt Carneyism ["loz im gayn"? :)]; they seemed very great-game-adjacent, earlier...
Soft bigotry: all too happy to take Koerner to the "cleaners" :) in that there's actually something OG-Darwinism here, not even "social". I'm of the opinion that all personality-disorders are (genetically) adaptive one way or other. Maybe Regency aesthetes do find the dour Colin Firth look+manners as attractive as bronze agers found their perverts? Think PH had something about the sadist-masochist pairing having strong selective (coevolutionary) pressures at the moment of orgasm? It's very mechanical, so sorry that Sade was born a century too early.
Hard bigotry: I'm with you on this one, so let's look at
Sharp bigotry: projecting personal suffering on other tribes or, less sensibly, your own tribe. Upper middle class intellects- "existential suffering". From zero to minus one? (Original sin sounds like a weird rationalization for inventing laughter?)
The M-H scales that I like best right now are the ones that separate flawed democracies from the others :) it looks like we only have to rotate the emo-xpressivity axis by a small angle ;)
(Data from alephnerd)
Kidult. Yes. Minor correction to be explicated later
No. Thanks for the rec! (As I've mentioned too many times, Phil Dick had a special spot for the schizos but was probably (self-)diagnosed with OCD)
Yes, The happiness of Sisyphus is exactly what I think an update of the classical eudaimonia would uh formalize.
(I think it was Camus that predicted that the US would eventually lose its position as the leader of civilisation but I haven't been able to find the exact quote, or the context)
(can we figure out a way for Bartle Taxonomy "killers" to spend their effort battling each other? to what extent is that what "sport" is already about?)
Was the globalist saint unable to rationalize out of suffering the killer-instinct? (Have not read R&S but that was written when he was suffering less?)
Meanwhile..
Math (or other similar disciplines) should strive to become a spectator sport!!
I think fencing may well become a spectator sport before maths! (they try, with plexi masks, but I don't think adding faces will help at all: the basic problem is it's a different way of observing and a different way of acting to almost all peoples' experience) Koerner doesn't believe maths is a spectator sport even for professional mathematicians: https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~twk10/Lecture.pdf#page=5
> The first and most important thing is to remember that most mathematicians are lost most of the time during lectures. (If you do not believe me, ask around.) Attending a mathematics lecture is like walking through a thunderstorm at night. Most of the time you are lost, wet and miserable but at rare intervals there is a flash of lightning and the whole countryside is lit up.
In India maybe. In the US (or some other places) it might be easier to have someone analyze your tax docs. "So what do you do?" is not a popular conversation opener these days..
reply