Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:And in other news (Score 2) 191

Of course, a lot of task that humans approach using intelligence or think they approach using intelligence does not actually require intelligence.
On the other hand, if you look at what the smartest 10% humans can do when they really think about something, there is no way to replicate that with weak AI. And strong AI is not even on the distant horizon.

That just sounds like the same backtracking over the years. Everything from shifting the goalposts, and making up adhoc definitions to try and define the problem away.

Most humans can't do what the 10% smartest can. And most of the 10% smartest can't do everything all the other people in that 10% can. If we were to head down your path of excuses, you may as well just get it over with and say humans aren't intelligent, which misses the point, really. Can computers do what humans do? Increasingly yes. That's all there is to it, and trying to fence off intelligence by adhoc redefinitions doesn't get away from that fact.

Comment Re:And in other news (Score 5, Insightful) 191

A lot of people have been trumpeting on about how computers will never be able to beat humans at poker. It's the same old song and dance. 1) Identify activity X that AIs can't do. 2) Attribute it to some made up quality that only all humans supposed possess. 3) AI beats humans. 4) "Well, what's so difficult about activity X? No one has ever claimed it was unachievable" 5) Restart process with activity X+1.

Comment Re:I reckon (Score 1) 339

That's the great part - bug counts are going to be far lower if you HAVE to have complete knowledge of what's going on.

Publish your solution to the halting problem and then we'll talk.

And you take that one-size-fits-all approach to everything you do, no matter what the language.

Coming from the person who obviously thinks everything should be written in C.

And seriously, awk?

Wow, you've seriously lost it in your old (mental) age. You tried to criticize me for supposedly only knowing one language. Then I proved you wrong. Instead of accepting that you come up with yet another non-sequitur. The fact I have used multiple languages to do what is needed is proof I don't have a one-size-fits-all approach.

Remember: YOU'RE the one who went of on a headless chicken rant about young'uns inventing new languages left right and center, but at the same time maintain the cognitive dissonance to also hate people who want to add new features to a language to avoid having to invent new languages all the time. Sort your own cognitive dissonance out first.

I'm done talking to you. This whole discussion has basically been about you being an old fuddy duddy who not only hates learning anything new, but wants people to stay stuck where you are. Here's an idea: FUCK OFF. Why are you even here? If someone wants to add to their language, IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU.

Comment Re:I reckon (Score 1) 339

And YOU miss the point that a human, having better knowledge than the compiler can ever have

Which is why there are no bugs, ever.

You want one size fits all, because that's all you know.

Explain why I know Java, Javascript, Python, LISP, assembly, plain-C, REXX, awk etc

People like you are the reason that people think running Doom in a web browser is somehow cool

Why would a C++ programmer want Doom to run in a web browser?

Comment Re:More features. (Score 1) 339

Actually I find functional style programming is a much better application of runtime polymorphism than OO inheritance hierarchies are. As a library designer, all I need to do is to accept a function object that fits a specification. As a user of that library, I don't need to know anything about the library other than what function object to pass to it. I can put only the minimal state I need in that function object. That way, neither library designer, nor library user introduce any coupling between each other's types.

Comment Re:I reckon (Score 1) 339

Check again. Template code is generated before the translation to machine language stage.

First, the "compile" stage is not just the code generation phase. The semantic analysis is pretty much part of the compile phase. Second, The type information preserved by templates can aid in the code optimization stage.

You need to know that the data is ordered properly, or bsort() won't give right results - and the compiler CANNOT know that.

Whoop de do. You can write a generic bsort in C++. You can write a generic algorithm anything. But please, keep missing the point as you keep doing.

Comment Re:I reckon (Score 1) 339

C++ keeps inventing new features. It's one of the best examples of bloat going.

Hey, you can keep living in the stone age if you want. Things were simpler then in the good ol' days.

And you clearly don't understand templates if you claim that template code runs faster. All template code does is allow the precompiler

I don't understand templates? You're calling it a "precompiler". Templates don't run in the precompile stage. Macros run in the precompile (or preprocessor, rather) stage. Templates require the full type information that is generated as the compile process goes along. Preserving type information allows for checks and optimizations that are not possible with void pointers, or pointers in general.

generate code that could also be generated in other ways, such as by a script.

And yes template code does run faster because of the "generated code". THAT IS THE POINT. Not just a moment ago, you were decrying the creation of new languages blah blah, and here you are talking about writing scripts to generate code. Where do you think those new languages come from if not because of people like you who would rather do more work for little benefit because it fits into some extremist ideology?

As for sorting, you can write different sorting routines based on the data and needs that are faster than anything you'll find in std::sort.

In case you didn't know, TEMPLATES can choose different routines based on the data. That's the whole point of templates. eg, you can have a generalized copy-range function, but depending on the compile time type, have it choose a fast copy using compiler intrinsics. That's the point of the std::sort example. Not because std::sort is the one and only sort, but because it is a demonstration of templates. Templates provide the ability to have tailored optimal algorithms without having to keep writing zillions of slightly different interfaces, or use void pointers and lose type information.

Comment Re:I reckon (Score 1) 339

RAII is wrong. It's sloppy. Stop drinking the kool-aid.

How would you know? Judging by our conversation, it's obvious you know nothing about it. You obviously stopped learning C++ long before the 98 standard, or you didn't bother to learn something properly.

I never used any sort of garbage collection or STL classes

You use garbage collection. You just stupidly write code that a machine could do for you because you have gross misunderstanding based on an unwillingness to learn.

Not needed, same as templates

Templates can make code faster than C code. Just compare std::sort to qsort. Templates allow high level optimizations not possible with pointer based "generic" code. Templates aren't needed, but they're better.

Call me when your *nix OS is written in c++ - then we'll talk.

Whatever. The compilers used to build those C Unixes are written in C++. GCC has been compiling as C++ for a while now, but you probably didn't want to know about it either.

same as all the modern build tools, the whole "we have a problem to solve that no language solves, so let's invent yet another language", shit like ruby, the gazillion javascript libraries, etc

We are talking about C++ here, so the whole "let's invent another language" doesn't EVEN apply here. But trust you to not bring up any points of relevance.

Slashdot Top Deals

We can defeat gravity. The problem is the paperwork involved.