Yet Another Dark Corner.
They're off by default, except for --posix, to avoid breaking old programs.
See the source for how to revert to pure ASCII.
However, interval expressions, even though specified by POSIX, are turned off by default, to avoid breaking old code.
The variable RT is set to the record terminator string.
This is disabled in compatibility mode.
This is disabled in compatibility mode.
A new PROCINFO array provides info about the process.
The BINMODE variable is new; on non-UNIX systems it affects how gawk opens files for text vs.
This is borrowed from ksh: it is not the same as the same operator in csh!
Thanks to Juergen Kahrs for the initial code.
The LINT variable is new; it provides dynamic control over the --lint option.
Use this if you're really serious about portable code.
It is now possible to dynamically add builtin functions on systems that support dlopen.
This facility is not yet as portable or well integrated as it might be.
Profiling has been added!
A separate version of gawk, named pgawk, is built and generates a run-time execution profile.
The --profile option can be used to change the default output file.
In regular gawk, this option pretty-prints the parse tree.
See the doc for details.
The match function takes an optional array third argument to hold the text matched by parenthesized sub-expressions.
The bit op functions and octal and hex source code constants are on by default, no longer a configure-time option.
Recognition of non-decimal data is now enabled at runtime with --non-decimal-data command line option.
Multi-byte character support has been added, courtesy of IBM Japan.
Completely new version of the full GNU regex engine now in place.
As a result of 6, removed the use of the dfa code from GNU grep.
Lots of other grammar simplifications applied, as well.
This cleans up some weird behavior, and makes gawk better match the documentation, which says it only affects regex-based field splitting and record splitting.
The documentation on this was improved, too.
Thanks to Michael Benzinger for the initial code.
Gawk now supports the ' flag in printf.
This has one problem; the ' flag is next to impossible to use on the command line, without major quoting games.
The dfa code has been reinstated; the performance degradation was just too awful.
This is even documented in the manual.
It's like -f but ends option processing.
It's needed mainly for CGI scripts, so that source code can't be passed in as part of the URL.
This also fixes multiple regex matching problems in multibyte locales.
Gawk is now multibyte aware.
This means that indexlengthsubstr and match all work in terms of characters, not bytes.
This is is a non-standard extension that will fail in POSIX mode.
Too many people the world over have complained about gawk's use of the locale's decimal point for parsing input data instead of the traditional period.
It is the sincere hope that this change will eliminate this FAQ from being asked.
Problems with wide strings in non "C" locales have been straightened out everywhere.
At least, we think so.
There are additional --lint-old warnings.
Gawk now uses getaddrinfo 3 to look up names and IP addresses.
Gawk now converts "+inf", "-inf", "+nan" and "-nan" into the corresponding magic IEEE floating point values.
Only those strings case independent work.
With --posix, gawk calls the system strtod directly.
You asked for it, you got it, you deal with it.
The strftime function now accepts an optional third argument, which if non-zero or non-null, indicates that the time should be formatted as UTC instead of as local time.
A new option, --use-lc-numeric, forces use of the locale's decimal point without the rest of the draconian restrictions imposed by --posix.
This softens somewhat the stance taken in item 2.
Everything relevant has been updated to the GPL 3.
The handling of BINMODE is now somewhat more sane.
A getline from a directory is no longer fatal; instead it returns -1.
Per POSIX, special variable names like FS cannot be used as function parameter names.
We hope that with time the number of optimizations will increase.
The zero flag no longer applies to %c and %s; apparently the standards changed at some point.
Failure to open a socket is no longer a fatal error.
The ' flag %'d is now just go here on systems that can't support it.
Lots of bug fixes, see the ChangeLog.
The split function accepts an optional fourth argument which is an array to hold the values of the separators.
There is a new --sandbox option; see the doc.
Indirect function calls are now available.
Interval expressions are now part of default regular expressions for GNU Awk syntax.
There's no longer a need for a configure-time option.
Gawk now supports BEGINFILE and ENDFILE.
See the doc for details.
The new FPAT variable allows you to specify a regexp that matches the fields, instead of matching the field separator.
The new patsplit function gives the same capability for splitting.
Merged with John Haque's byte code 憎悪のゲームの発売日のpc />Adds dgawk debugger and possibly improved performance.
Arrays of arrays added.
The latest POSIX standard allows this, and the documentation has been updated.
The value of this element provides control over how the indices are sorted before the loop traversal starts.
A new isarray function exists to distinguish if an item is an array or not, to make it possible to traverse multidimensional arrays.
Some younger programmers expect that older programmers are slower, make hope, テレビファカップゲームラウンド3 think mistakes, and would rather be doing something else such as managing programmers.
Are they right to think so?
Kent Beck, Husband, father, programmer, goat far.
I'm 50, which seems like aging to me.
The question as stated is incorrect.
I do not make more errors now than I used to, I make different errors.
However, I make fewer errors of arrogance and fewer errors because of panic.
After 35 years of programming and raising 5 children, it's hard to rattle me.
I have noticed that my capacity for novelty has diminished as I have aged.
The number of new things I could tackle you ダブルトリプルチャンスオンラインカジノ casually a unit of time is maybe a third of what it used to be.
As to the rest of the question, I am not the least bit interested in managing programmers and there is nothing I would rather be doing than programming.
I'm curious about why the question was asked.
A young guy trying to figure out the old farts around him?
An old fart trying to figure out if he is alone?
I'm half tempted to start a Geezer Geek conference to address the concerns of the aging programmer.
Until yesterday I thought they were the same thing myself.
The author of this code, however, had the very common misconception that this is currying, and called his function "curry" as a result.
I shared this misconception for some time, and thought that currying and partial application were the same thing.
In fact they are to certain extent opposites.
Well, in some pure functional languages this is exactly how functions with multiple arguments are built up.
In ocaml, a function which takes two ints and returns a float is actually a function which takes an int and returns a function which takes an int and returns a float.
learn more here ocaml curries add for us, the function has been partially applied.
It's interesting to note that in ocaml if you label your function arguments, they can be partially applied in any order.
The slides are up on slideshare, and they're well worth reading.
I haven't read perl5-porters, the Perl 5 maintainers' mailing list, in a few years, and Jesse's slides are an eye-opener to the trials and tribulations of keeping Perl 5 usable in legacy situations but moving forward with new innovations.
The pumpking is sort of the project leader for Perl 5, and arbiter of what gets committed into the source tree.
The pumpking also used to be the person who created the releases, but as Jesse points out below, this responsibility has been delegated to others.
The term "pumpking" comes from the holder of the patch pumpkin.
Now it's a documented process that takes only a few hours.
Releases are done by rotating volunteer release engineers.
Per Larry, the time of hero pumpkings is over.
Perl should have sane defaults.
Perl 5 should run everywhere: Every OS, every browser, every phone.
Programmers shouldn't have to build defensive code to protect against future changes to Perl 5.
Old modules are getting yanked from core link moved to CPAN.
Not deprecating, but decoupling.
We need to release a version of the Perl core that contains all the stuff we've yanked out of the "slim" core distribution.
Donate to the Perl 5 Core Maintenance Fund.
I couldn't attend Jesse's talk because I was speaking about community and project management with Github in the same time slot, so if video exists I'd love to see it.
go here thanks very much to Jesse and the rest of p5p for keeping Perl 5 so amazing.
This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
The answer is that in UTF-8, ASCII is just 1 byte, but that in general, most Western languages including English use a few characters here and there that require 2 bytes, so actual percentages vary.
The Greek and Cyrillic languages all require at least 2 bytes per character in their script when encoded in UTF-8.
Common Eastern langauges require for their characters 3 bytes in UTF-8 but 2 in UTF-16.
But that is for a single code point only.
It does not apply to an entire file.
The actual percentage is impossible to state with precision, because you do not know whether the balance of code points down in the 1- or 2-byte UTF-8 range, or in the 4-byte UTF-8 range.
If there is white space in the Asian text, then that is only byte of UTF-8, and yet it is a costly 2 bytes of UTF-16.
These things do vary.
You can only get precise numbers on precise text, not on general text.
Code points in Asian text take 1, 2, 3, or 4 bytes of UTF-8, while in UTF-16 they variously require 2 or 4 bytes apiece.
Case Study Compare the various languages' Wikipedia pages on Tokyo to see what I mean.
Even in Eastern languages, there is still plenty of ASCII going on.
This alone makes your figures fluctuate.
Consider: Paras Lines Words Graphs Chars UTF16 UTF8 8:16 16:8 Language 519 1525 6300 43120 43147 86296 44023 51% 196% English 343 728 1202 8623 8650 17302 9173 53% 189% Welsh 541 1722 9013 57377 57404 114810 59345 52% 193% Spanish 529 1712 9690 63871 63898 127798 67016 52% 191% French 321 837 2442 18999 19026 38054 無料のオンラインiphoneゲームメーカー 56% 180% Hungarian 202 464 976 7140 7167 14336 11848 83% 121% Greek 348 937 2938 21439 21467 42936 36585 85% 117% Russian 355 788 613 6439 6466 12934 13754 106% 94% Chinese, simplified 209 419 243 2163 2190 4382 3331 76% 132% Chinese, traditional 461 1127 1030 25341 25368 50738 65636 129% 77% Japanese 410 925 2955 13942 13969 27940 29561 106% 95% Korean Each of those is the Tokyo Wikipedia page saved as text, not as HTML.
All text is in NFC, not in NFD.
The meaning of each of the columns is as follows: 1.
Paras is the number of blankline separated text spans.
Lines is the number of linebreak separated text spans.
Words is the number of whitespace separated text spans.
Graphs is the number of Unicode extended grapheme clusters, sometimes called glyphs.
These are user-visible characters.
Chars is the number of Unicode code points.
These are, or should be, programmer-visible characters.
UTF16 is how many bytes that takes up when the file is stored as UTF-16.
UTF8 is how many bytes that takes up when the file is stored as UTF-8.
I've grouped the languages into Western Latin, Western non-Latin, and Eastern.
Western languages that use the Latin script suffer terribly upon conversion from UTF-8 to UTF-16, with English suffering the most by expanding by 96% and Hungarian the least by expanding by 80%.
Western languages that do not use the Latin script still suffer, but only 15-20%.
Eastern languages DO NOT SUFFER in UTF-8 the way everyone claims that they do!
In fact, it costs 32% to use UTF-16 over UTF-8 for this sample.
If you look at the Lines and Words columns, it looks that crossfire私のオンラインゲームの組織をハックします。 might be due to white space usage.
I hope that answers your question.
There is simply no +50% to +100% size increase for Eastern languages when encoded in UTF-8 compared to when these same texts are encoded in UTF-16.
Only when taking individual code points do you ever see numbers like that, which is more info completely unreasonable metric.
Eastern languages DO NOT SUFFER in UTF-8 the way everyone claims that they do!
UC Berkeley will soon join MIT and several other universities in abandoning Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, widely regarded as one of the best congratulate, ダウンロード用無料オンラインゲーム accept in computer science, in favor of alternative material covering Python.
This is a mistake.
SICP is revered for its wit, clarity, and brilliance.
It expands the mind.
There have even been reports of it inducing paroxysms of joy.
The best thing that can be said about SICP is that it will make you a better programmer.
It discusses crucially important topics like オンラインカジノシミュレーションゲーム decomposition and the performance implications of various types of procedures.
It initiates profound changes in the way you plan and think about code.
Although the text is based on Scheme, its teachings are ラスベガスの勝つスロットマシン and essentially language agnostic.
This is where most of its competition fails.
Berkeley's intended replacement for SICP, Dive Into Python, will make you a better Python programmer.
Another candidate, Thinking In Java, will make you a better Java programmer.
A third option, Thinking In C++, will no doubt make you a better C++ programmer.
From an educational standpoint however, none of these alternatives are satisfactory.
The sad truth is that SICP's gradual removal from computer https://bonus-games.site/1/243.html curricula has left behind a gaping hole that few other texts can hope to fill.
To understand what makes SICP so special, you have to immerse yourself in it.
To Slay a Dragon!
I'm sure that the decision was well-meaning, and who knows, things may even turn out for the best this way.
That said, I really hate to see SICP on its deathbed at Berkeley.
Dive Into Python, whatever its merits, is certainly not an adequate replacement.
Not if you want students to walk away with a deep appreciation for the elegance and power of their field.
I was looking forward to CS61A over the summer and received an unpleasant surprise when I heard rumors of change… A lot of students will be missing out on a great program this fall.
Please help me raise awareness about this issue.
I don't know if the department can be convinced to reverse their decision, but I hope that's the case.
I'll take the musings of Ben Bitdiddle over XML parsing 101 any day.
An Update SICP will not be abandoned at Berkeley.
Although Python will be used to convey the material, I have been assured that much of the content from SICP will be preserved.
I recognize now that CS61A is a fusion of sorts: an exciting modern treatment of traditionally intellectual material.
This change reflects concerns about the difficulty of SICP, the popularity of Python, and a general lack of click at this page on the part of students and teachers in Scheme.
I think this is the best possible solution for an introductory course, but that's just my opinion.
I want to reiterate that I mean Berkeley or its professors no disrespect, and that I only raised this issue because I was concerned about a potentially drastic shift in the curriculum.
I can't begin to thank you all for your comments, criticism, emails, and interest.
It's made a world of difference.
Two key solutions were produced: 1.
Introduce a spare variable to do some pass the parcel of the values or: 2.
Use some bitwise operators.
There then ensued an argument on which was in fact the better solution I'd be leaning towards the first option while being aware that the second one exists, but may not always evaluate as expected depending on the values in question.
Bearing in mind the story of Mel the Real Programmer, I am interested in knowning how you evaluate code as being elegant or not, and is succinctness a key feature of elegant code.
Good code should be clean, simple and easy to understand first of all.
The simpler and cleaner it is, the less the chance of bugs slipping in.
As Saint-Exupery coined, "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Programming Pearls shows several examples where an insight gained during analysis gave a totally different angle of attack, resulting in a very simple, elegant and short solution.
Showing how clever the author is, only comes after these ;- Performance micro-optimization like using the bitwise operations you mention should be used only when one can prove with concrete measurements that the piece of code in question is the bottleneck, and that the change actually improves performance I have seen examples to the contrary.
Not to mention if you are going to do something clever it should be WELL documented.
IMHO no wrong code can truly be crossfire私のオンラインゲームの組織をハックします。 />The easier it is to understand code, click here easier to maintain.
Prematurely pessimized code cannot truly be elegant.
When given two equally elegant options, the one that is closest to the established standard is the best.
Okay, I'm joking, but it's easy to label code that is NOT how you would do it as "inelegant".
Please don't do that - keep an open mind to crossfire私のオンラインゲームの組織をハックします。 code.
Of course, there's also the all-too-often true adage: "To every problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong".
My definition is simple unfortunately you can't determine all of it yourself.
Any non-trivial logic blocks are described by a comment.
Header bytes Min message length Max message length 0 0?
A single byte works see p-stringsit's just easy to work with, even a fixed 2 or four bytes work needing only a cast with what would end up being a macro.
The problem is that that one byte is unusable, 2 bytes is limited, and 4 bytes took up way too much space back then.
So then you go to variable length styles and you find you now need variable length code just to read a string?
WTF does it look like to read someones name when they type it in?
Yes, this would work in other languages, but not C, it's too low level, people want to operate on the string buffers directly and the APIs need to support long strings, null terminated is what works.
Since the dictionary would be searched from newest to oldest definitions, recursion would normally occur.
I had not thought about it too much before, because it seemed natural to me, but she said that left-to-right seemed more natural to her, since that's how most of us read natural languages.
I thought about it, and concluded that it makes code much easier to read, since the names that are assigned to which the programmer will need to reuse are easily visible, aligned on the left.
Rest- I've learned バットマンダークナイトライズゲーム無料ダウンロード make sure I get plenty of rest the night before I teach.
I also make sure I have plenty of caffeine, water, and healthy snacks at my disposal during the day.
Do not underestimate how much energy it takes to run a class.
Relax- You lose your train of thought, you freeze, you stutter, you sweat a little, you don't know the answer, you forget their names.
Relax, these things happen.
Believe it or not, your students want you to succeed and are very forgiving.
Just realize that mistakes happen: handle it, and move on.
If you can't recover quickly, カジノエクストリームアフィリエイト make the class take a 5-10 min break to recover or defer to the other instructor.
Break the Ice with Introductions- For me, the hardest part of teaching a class is the first hour of class on the first day.
You don't know the students and they don't know you.
The best way to get around this is to quickly introduce yourself then have the students go around the room and introduce themselves.
This takes the pressure off you, distributes it across everyone in the room and gives you the time to get comfortable and ease into the role of instructor.
Labs- Lots of them.
Labs are the most important aspect of teaching a class on programming.
Students will not absorb the information from your lectures as well if you don't give them frequent opportunities to put the material to use in a practical way.
It's like playing a musical instrument - you can read about it all day long but when it comes down to making music there's no substitute for physical practice and interaction with the instrument itself.
Knowledge is solidified during lab time.
This is when most of the "Ah-ha!
Avoid Slides if Possible- Slides work really well for short presentations because they help support your succinct message; in the classroom, slides can actually hinder students from paying attention.
Slides also have a tendency to kill the opportunity for spontaneous subjects.
It's okay to go off on a tangent, especially if your students are engaged.
Don't just read from a slide deck.
Build things with them on the fly.
There's nothing techies love more than live, working, and tweakable examples.
Student: "How does that work?
Why does that work?
That wins over slides every time.
Encourage Discussion- People like to talk.
Give them frequent opportunities to talk with you and the other students about the material.
I've found that if you encourage lots of discussion during the lecture and throughout the course people tend to help each other a lot more during labs.
It creates a more lively and memorable environment.
People pay attention more if an interesting conversation is likely to break out at any time.
Ruby had a chance of making it big, but ultimately it failed to deliver except Rails.
A good analogy for the paths of Python and Ruby is the careers of two Star Wars stars: The career of Mark Hamill resembles that of Ruby, while Python is that of Harrison Ford.
Poul-Henning Kamp IT both drives and implements the modern Western-style economy.
Thus, we regularly see headlines about staggeringly large amounts of money connected with IT mistakes.
Which IT or CS decision has resulted in the most expensive mistake?
Not long ago, a fair number of pundits were doing a lot of hand waving about the financial implications of Sony's troubles with its PlayStation Network, but an event like that does not count here.
In my school days, I talked with an inspector from The Guinness Book of World Records who explained that for something to be "a true record," it could not be a mere accident; there had to be direct causation starting with human intent i.
The choice was really simple: Should the C language represent strings as an address + length tuple or just as the address with a magic character NUL marking the end?
This is a decision that the dynamic trio of Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, and Brian Kernighan must have made one day in the early 1970s, and they had full freedom to choose either way.
I have not found any record of the decision, which I admit is a weak point in its candidacy: I do not have proof that it was a conscious decision.
As the C language was a development from assembly to a portable high-level language, I have a hard time believing that Ken, Dennis, and Brian gave it no thought at all.
In other words, this could have been a perfectly typical and rational IT or CS decision, like the many similar decisions we all make every day; but this one had quite atypical economic consequences.
Namely the fact that you cannot store such a NUL byte in it.
Aside from one special rule about initialization by string literals, the learn more here of strings are fully subsumed by more general rules governing all arrays, and as a result the language is simpler to describe and to translate than one incorporating the string as a unique data type.
Therefore all malloc and stack allocations were always done in 16-bit word chunk sizes to ensure that any word accesses were all even byte aligned, so there was no 1 byte saving by using null termination.
The Amiga kernel was written using BCPL strings and it was a great technical achievement but unfortunately the market could not accept it at that time.
Fast forward three decades and we have reinvented preemptive multitasking and resource efficiency in the mobile market and are about to repopularize length-prefixed strings as std::string in C++ as part of the upcoming C++ Renaissance.
The author supposes a net change to the storage requirement of a new string as "one byte longer," implying a two byte length field, since we're dropping the trailing null.
Machines at the time had 16, 18, and 22 bit address spaces, so a 16 bit string size would certainly have been quite sufficient back then.
Moreover, even those PDP machines with 18 and 22 bit addresses provided it to user space with overlays, further restricting you to only 64 KB of contiguous storage at any given point in time.
Me: Defining the storage requirement as one byte longer does not imply a one byte length, it implies a two byte length, more than enough for the time.
If the decision had been made so, the length field would have likely been expanded with the machine's native int size, just as the pointer grew with the underlying architecture.
It almost goes without saying the address space would have been available to a single string though whether that's a feature or misfeature is another question entirely.
Faced with porting BCPL from Multics to the PDP-7 he dropped some stuff to squeeze it into less memoryand thus B was born.
This change was made partially to avoid the limitation on the length of a string caused by holding the count in an 8- or 9-bit slot, and partly because maintaining the count seemed, in our experience, less convenient than using a terminator.
I'd happily compile my C code with it.
Specific combination of regexp and string can cause ruby process to hang with 100% CPU.
Perl's not my favorite language either, but is bitching about the language even relevant here?
It's not an article about advocating Perl; it's a resource for learning the language, whatever your reasons.
Having worked at a job previously where I was forced to program in Perl, I would have been grateful to have a tutorial like this.
The Camel book just wasn't my cup of tea.
It'll be nice in the next 5-10 years when the latest scripting language is popular and all the Python and Ruby users have to defend their choices the same way Perl and PHP users have.
I'm kind of hoping that latest scripting language will be Perl 6.
I like to tell that to my Ruby-on-Rails-fan co-workers and give them nightmares.
Edit: and when I do that I remind them of how mercilessly Mozilla was mocked during its long development.
That really scares 'em.
Most projects fail; mockery is not a badge of honor because every well-publicized project is mocked.
EDIT: Reddit is fucking with me today.
Sorry about the multiple replies, I thought the last one didn't make it through.
Every delay of Mozilla was seen as another opportunity to tell the Mozilla devs to throw in the towel and admit their work was useless, pointless and hopeless.
I'm mainly thinking of the slashdot geeks.
But the badmouthers were wrong.
I'm not saying being mocked is a badge of honor.
I'm saying there was a huge amount of spleen vented at Mozilla, it was seen as an utterly wasted effort.
No one would ever use it.
It'll never be finished.
And we know how that all turned out.
And today, there is a devoted group of coders working to do great things with Perl 6.
They are not rushing things.
They are taking their time and doing it right.
Meanwhile, Perl has probably the worst reputation of any of the "script" languages coders could choose so it seems to mewarranted or not.
Perl implicitly will never change; it's old, ugly, and has crappy OO.
I'm really looking forward to how this will turn out.
Gonna have to disagree with you there, buddy.
Mozilla was not just mocked, but mocked "mercilessly".
They were constantly being told to just click for source in the towel.
And they were all wrong.
I'm not saying that being mocked is a badge of honor.
I'm just saying they all thought Mozilla was a wasted effort, and they were all wrong.
They were handed the entire source code of Netscape 4.
XPCOM, Mork What saved Mozilla's bacon was the Firefox team.
They stripped out the bullshit.
They left the modularity in and put the features in plugins.
Easy to write plugins, thanks to XUL.
This document totally reminds me why I dropped Perl for Python.
Hash and Array refs drove me nuts last time I had to do lists-of-lists : Agreed that this tutorial isn't great.
Agreed that this tutorial isn't great.
Hey, I thought the tutorial was pretty good.
Just because the subject matter sucks doesn't make it a bad explanation.
Perl's syntax owes a lot to ancient shell scripting tools, and it is famed for its overuse of confusing symbols, the majority of which are impossible to Google for.
Perl's shell scripting heritage makes it great for writing glue code: scripts which link together other scripts and programs.
Perl is ideally suited for processing text data and producing more text data.
Perl is widespread, popular, highly portable and well-supported.
Perl was designed with the philosophy "There's More Than One Way To Do It" TMTOWTDI contrast with Python, where "there should be one - and preferably only one - obvious way to do it".
Perl has horrors, but also some great redeeming features.
In this respect it is like every other programming language ever created.
This document is intended to be as short as possible, but no shorter.
I've deliberately omitted or neglected to bother to research the "full truth" of the matter for the same reason that there's no point in starting ステーションカジノ a Year 7 physics student with the Einstein field equations.
If you see a serious lie, point it out, but I reserve the right to preserve certain critical lies-to-children.
I have recently been learning D and am starting to get some sort of familiarity with the language.
I know what it offers, I don't yet know how to use everything, and I don't know much about D idioms and so on, but I am learning.
It is a nice language, being, in some sort of ways, a huge update to C, and done nicely.
None of the features seem that "bolted on", but actually quite well thought-out and well-designed.
You will often hear that D is what C++ should have been I leave the question whether or not that is true to each and everyone to decide themselves in order to avoid unnecessary flame wars.
I have also heard from several C++ programmers that they enjoy D much more than C++.
I would like to hear from someone knowing both C++ and D if they think there is something that C++ does better than D as a language meaning not the usual "it has more third-party libraries" or "there are more resources" or "more jobs requiring C++ than D exists".
D was designed by some very skilled C++ programmers Walter Bright and Andrei Alexandrescu, with the help of the D community to fix many of think, マイアミの24時間営業のカジノ apologise issues that C++ had, but was there something that actually didn't 無料のオンライン1年生 better after all?
Something you think wasn't a better solution?
Also, note that I am talking about D 2.
Most of the things C++ "does" better than D are meta things: C++ has better compilers, better tools, more mature libraries, more bindings, more experts, more tutorials etc.
Basically it has more and better of all the external things that you would expect from a more mature language.
For example, it is currently impossible to copy a const struct to a non-const struct if the struct contains class object references or pointers due to the transitivity of const and the way postblit constructors work on value types.
Andrei says he knows how to solve this, but didn't give any details.
The problem is certainly fixable introducing C++-style copy constructors would be one fixbut it is a major problem in language at present.
Another problem that has bugged me is the lack of logical const i.
This is great for writing thread-safe code, but makes it difficult impossible?
Finally, given these existing problems, I'm worried about how the rest of the type system pure, shared, etc.
The standard library Phobos currently makes very little use of D's advanced type system, so I think it is reasonable the question whether it will hold up under stress.
I am skeptical, but optimistic.
Note that C++ has some type system warts e.
Edit: To clarify, I believe that C++ has a better thought out type system -- not necessarily a better one -- if that makes sense.
Essentially, in D I feel that there is a risk involved in using all aspects of its type system that isn't present in C++.
D is sometimes a little too convenient One criticism that you often hear of C++ is that it hides some low-level issues from you e.
Some people like this, some people don't.
Either way, in D it is worse better?
I don't think this is a big issue personally, but some might find this off-putting.
However, just because it is possible doesn't mean it is practical.
Without a GC, you lose a lot of D's features, and using the standard library would be like walking in a minefield who knows which functions allocate memory?
Personally, I think it is totally impractical to use D without a GC, and if you aren't a fan of GCs like I am then this can be quite off-putting.
Edit: Note that this is a known issue that is being worked on.
I could easily make a larger post of places where D is better than C++.
It's up to you to make the decision of which one to use.
The posted answers are excellent.
I merely wish to illustrate one, already made, point on a concrete example.
The whole program is assembled from independent building blocks; as our task changes, we replace one building block with another.
The building blocks, iteratees, may be stateful.
We never have to worry about writing out the whole state of the program and properly initializing it.
The overall state is implicitly composed from the state of each building block; each iteratee manages its own state without leaking it.
It searches for the first occurrence of the given word in the file and returns the line of that occurrence and the line number.
The example also illustrates exception handling: The exception is raised by Iteratee.
The processing stops as soon as one of the iteratees in the pair stopped.
The whole pair is stopped too.
New state has to be defined and initialized, before the loop.
The state has to be updated, somewhere in the loop.
The state has to be finalized, in the loop termination part.
When changing code, it is easy to overlook the needed changes.
For example, it is easier to accumulate the context lines in reverse order.
When printing the lines, we should not forget to reverse them.
When changes are disconnected, it is hard continue reading reason and test for them.
With so many other things going on, it is hard to write a proper test for example, when testing the context accumulation we don't care about word matching; we should test the accumulation in isolation of whatever else we are doing in the iteration.
In fact, the iteratee is pure and deals with arbitrary elements not necessarily lines.
We can test it using Quickcheck or HUnit.
No IO is needed for the test.
Thank you for the inspiring question.
魚タウンで絶望した - Goat MMO Simulator 実況プレイ - Part2
見切りを閃いています ゲーム「ロマンシング サ・ガ2」の技習得システム。. P22, 這いニャル幻想記14 スクウェア・エニックスのオンラインゲーム「ファイナルファンタジーXIV」はネットワークやサーバーの障害が多く、. ニャル子はすでに少し錯乱しているだけ （十六夜さん情報）アニメ「機動戦士ガンダムSEED DESTINY」の台詞から。.. P57, わたしの機動砲台は凶暴だから 特にクー子の食欲が絡んでいる時は。6巻でも使われていたアニメ「機動戦士ガンダムX」の台詞.... ここで倒れたのは”組織を破壊された”からだろう。
This theme is simply matchless :), it is pleasant to me)))
It not absolutely that is necessary for me.
In it something is. Clearly, I thank for the information.
In my opinion you are not right. I am assured. I can prove it.
I can suggest to visit to you a site, with a large quantity of articles on a theme interesting you.