Channel 9 - Discussions by websnarf

Coffeehouse - Who changed C++ while I wasn't looking!?

websnarf — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 09:12:58 GMT

wkempf wrote:

Cairo wrote:

Sven Groot wrote:

Cairo wrote: Please elaborate.

stdint.h is not part of the C++ standard (it's part of C99, but not of any currently released version of C++, maybe they plan to include it in C++0x, but that's besides the point).

More importantly, VC doesn't have the stdint.h header.

Ahhh. Thanks, I see now. Too bad VC doesn't ship stdint.h, or something like it; it's handy.

How about using something like Paul Hsieh's "portable stdint.h"?

In this case, it's not handy. It's not part of the standard, so it's not portable. If you're not writing portable code, you have no use for what stdint.h provides. A "portable" substitute is not a bad idea, but VC including a non-portable version would be pointless.

But was the least of the issues with what others have been posting. "int was always 32 bit" type quotes are very telling about the quality of software engineers we have in this thread.

What do you mean it's not handy? You can download it, include it in your project and voila, you get as much portability as it has to offer. You don't have to configure it -- its just a drop in that gives you all the main interfaces from stdint.h.

stdint.h is something that should have always been in the standard. The reason is, of course, because of all the people that seem to think int is 32 bits -- although we can blame these people for getting it wrong, the ANSI C committee itself is partially to blame as well for not giving them a clear way of giving them what they want (an integer with a specified number of bits, for example.)

Unfortunately, C99 has not been widely adopted in compilers (MSVC does not supoprt it, and both the Intel compiler and gcc support is partial at best). But that's where stdint.h comes from. In general, the need for stdint.h is much greater than the need for the rest of C99. This was my motivation for creating pstdint.h. So C++ users and pre-C99 users, which is basically everyone, can gain access to the stdint.h defines without having to upgrade or change their compiler (especially if such an upgrade path does not exist).

Coffeehouse - This is exactly why Linux/OSS scares people away...

websnarf — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:31:20 GMT

Cybermagellan wrote:

websnarf wrote:

Cybermagellan wrote:

websnarf wrote:

Chadk wrote:
But nice job. Making the largest part of the users of the internet, unable to browse his sites. Street credits++;
Or wait..

I think you've missed an important part of his reasoning. He claims his site is meant for technical people. I think pretty much all technical people have installed an alternate browser such as Opera or FireFox or Safari, even if they use IE (primarily or not).

Your gauge of all technical people is?

My gauge? I would say that its the ability to understand subtle concepts of a technical nature. Like: Using IE by default will increase the probability of a virus or some kind of malware infecting my computer.

Maybe to people who click any link they get, search for warez, or surf kiddie pr0n, but I'm guessing since the majority of Firefox users that cop out at "Viruses, Malware, Spyware" are probably all guilty of the above mentioned activities.

Uhhh .... excuse me; GDI+ bug? You didn't have to click on anything to get the standard buffer overflow backdoor thing happening. In theory people could put up images on flickr that have users install mIrc and the eggdrop bot without too much trouble.

Objectively speaking, using IE just increases the probability of getting a virus or malware, regardless of how a users surfs the web. Telling people how to browse the web is neither the correct answer nor an effective solution. So this suggestion of yours is non-sequitor.

Cybermagellan wrote:

It's usually the ones that preach about standards complience that are technical.

I'm going to stick with my gauge (ability to understand subtle technical things), if you don't mind. I'm not sure this bizarre litmus test would be very generally application in the real world.

Cybermagellan wrote:

websnarf wrote:

Cybermagellan wrote:I know the site is/was probably a joke anyways, however if not, and this guy wants hired...maybe it's that program/project manager from a health insurance company or whatever company you wanna pick that has no idea is the one that would go there to hire this guy...and yet he would probably lose a client...

Because we all know that using Internet Explorer means your money is no good also right?

So sometimes people do things that is not objectively in their best interest. And your problem with that is?

Sometimes I wish the Darwin effect was exposed to a much larger population. Some people need to be removed from the equation.

Oh! Well, if you just wanted to openly advocate the death of someone, why didn't you just say so?

Coffeehouse - This is exactly why Linux/OSS scares people away...

websnarf — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:11:01 GMT

Cybermagellan wrote:

websnarf wrote:

Chadk wrote:
But nice job. Making the largest part of the users of the internet, unable to browse his sites. Street credits++;
Or wait..

I think you've missed an important part of his reasoning. He claims his site is meant for technical people. I think pretty much all technical people have installed an alternate browser such as Opera or FireFox or Safari, even if they use IE (primarily or not).

Your gauge of all technical people is?

My gauge? I would say that its the ability to understand subtle concepts of a technical nature. Like: Using IE by default will increase the probability of a virus or some kind of malware infecting my computer.

Cybermagellan wrote:

I know the site is/was probably a joke anyways, however if not, and this guy wants hired...maybe it's that program/project manager from a health insurance company or whatever company you wanna pick that has no idea is the one that would go there to hire this guy...and yet he would probably lose a client...

Because we all know that using Internet Explorer means your money is no good also right?

So sometimes people do things that is not objectively in their best interest. And your problem with that is?

Coffeehouse - This is exactly why Linux/OSS scares people away...

websnarf — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:01:26 GMT

TimP wrote:

Don't confuse Linux users with Firefox users. I use Linux and I've found the Firefox crowd to be a rabid bunch that you should stay away from.

Excuse me? Its a damn browser; even mothers, liberal arts students, and geriatrics have had this installed on their machines for them. There are universities that have made it policy to switch to this browser as a default. The Firefox market share is apparently approaching 25%. You think a quarter of the population of computer users are just a rabid bunch?

TimP wrote:

I've seen more of this sort of IE discrimination lately. This one is better than most though, often they do it so they can slap their Google/Firefox button on there and make a buck off a referral.

Huh? You don't think maybe people are motivated to reduce the virus/malware/trojan impact on their machines by avoiding IE? You don't think people don't like pop-up blockers and tabbed browsing? You don't think their might be a genuine good reason for wanting to use and promote Firefox?

TimP wrote:

This guy just seems to have an axe to grind.

Yeah, its a good thing you've ignored him and are not obsessing about it. Oh wait, too late.

TimP wrote:

What really annoys me about Firefox people are the ones who claim that IE users are sheep.

Well there's a large degree to which that's true. IE is the default browser installed with Windows, so its kind of hard for people to not have that as their first choice without active intervention with knowledge that the average person just doesn't have. Certainly all the "sheep" out there will be using IE; one can only be using Firefox (or Opera or Safari) if they've made an informed choice.

TimP wrote:

Is it not possible to prefer IE because it's faster and better browser for my needs?

Your needs being to work in a MS-centric environment right? If you are a technical person, who is not a sheep, why can't you just fire up some other browser to go visit his site? You know there are a lot of other sites out there where the reverse is true you know (where its IE-only, due to some IE-specific quirks that the site is dependent on.)

Coffeehouse - This is exactly why Linux/OSS scares people away...

websnarf — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:48:11 GMT

TommyCarlier wrote:

If you say Microsoft is still evil, because they were kinda naughty in the nineties, then IBM has to be über-evil, because they used to build machines for the nàzis.

You know that during the 80s and early 90s Microsoft worked extremely closely with IBM right?

Coffeehouse - This is exactly why Linux/OSS scares people away...

websnarf — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:45:09 GMT

Rossj wrote:

compugab wrote:
If you can read french my thought :

http://compugab.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!10776258A820AB66!325.entry

Good post!
I think it is hard not to agree that Microsoft has gotten a lot better than it was, but some people will alwsy refuse to leave the early 90s .. I expect in another 10 years to see posts from people who weren't even alive in the 90s criticising Microsoft for the way they were ..

Did you see the recent Semantic report that said that bugs from Windows 95 have crept back into the latest Vista Beta's TCP/IP stack? I suspect that perhaps in 10 years you Microsofties will be back to your old tricks (the European anti-trust suit is over now right?) and bringing back all the bugs you've gotten rid of in previous versions, but did not bother to document the fixes for.

Coffeehouse - This is exactly why Linux/OSS scares people away...

websnarf — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:38:40 GMT

Chadk wrote:

Wow.

This seems like one of those Linux-Kiddies!
They live on the dream, that microsoft are filled with evil people, that want to get people to use their software, so they can reach world domination and get rich, aswell as control the world.

Actually, that's just a kind of derivative or deductive thought that many programmers outside of Microsoft have of you people (Linux users or not). Your browser is a catalyst for every kind of worm, malware, and virus imaginable. You don't think this is any reflection of the kind of software we outsiders think you write?

Chadk wrote:

It truely shows his ignorence.

I think that sentence speaks for itself.

Chadk wrote:

It could just aswell have been statsment saying "OMFGZZZZZ PLZ¿ MICROSOFT SUX, LINUX ROX, N00B!", and think he is cool because he is saying that.

Well he could have said that, but he didn't. The source of this projection appears to be you.

Chadk wrote:

But nice job. Making the largest part of the users of the internet, unable to browse his sites. Street credits++;
Or wait..

I think you've missed an important part of his reasoning. He claims his site is meant for technical people. I think pretty much all technical people have installed an alternate browser such as Opera or FireFox or Safari, even if they use IE (primarily or not). The Cut-Paste for the URL edit box appears to work in all the browsers I have seen, so there's not big deal or challenge in switching browsers to this persons's site. The largest part of the Internet may currently be non-technical IE users, however, that is apparently not his audience.

On another note, apparent that IE's W3C CSS compatibility is the pits. So on purely technical grounds, it may make sense for technical people to want to avoid pandoring to the special needs of a browser that is essentially defective.

Chadk wrote:

This is simply horror.

Grammar much?

Coffeehouse - This is exactly why Linux/OSS scares people away...

websnarf — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:24:24 GMT

So perpetrating a denial of service attack is an appropriate response to someone with a strong opinion?