38 karma · joined May 17, 2018
https://madnight.github.io/githut/#/pull_requests/2020/3
I think it's mainly due to the introduction of C++11, C++14 and C++17, which _has_ rejuvenated the language, despite the criticism.
Discussions like this one tend to be sort of skewed, because opponents of an old technology, like C++, tend to be more vocal in their opinions. Likewise, proponents of a new technology, like Rust, also tend to be more vocal. It becomes sort of noisy. Behind the noise, though, I think the fact remains that C++ is still very solid, and probably even more so than it was just a few years ago.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10569.On_Writing
One of the things he mentions in his book is to be judicious in editing your own texts, removing any words that do not add to the actual message that you're trying to get across. For instance, in the last sentence, I ought to have removed the word 'actual'.
I think some of this advice could probably apply to this article as well.
Also, I think maybe the font size should be a little bit larger, at least for the text around the position where the cursor is, if not for the whole text. Otherwise, nice application!
I see that he does the same, keeping his own lightweight string class implementation, for instance, and also his own lightweight smart pointer implementations (Owned and Borrowed). I suspect that he also uses bare pointers and new for similar reasons.
It would be interesting to know if he thinks it is necessary, or if he could have used std::string, std::unique_ptr and std::make_unique instead in this framework.
The book is pretty good, well worth the read if you're only slightly interested in the topic!
https://archive.org/details/eu_Wired-1995-07_OCR/page/n145/m...
Wired Magazine during the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 had something a bit magical about it, the way I remember it. You could sort of feel, while reading it, that it was a harbinger of great, great things to come, both from technology in general, and the fusion of personal computing and the internet in particular. It generally was a pleasure to read the magazine in those days.
https://github.com/bjaastad/simple-static-type-registry-cpp/...
If it's at all treatable, I'd suggest training yourself in picking up on the subtler types of social cues and signals that other people send out. Like Sheldon does in Big Bang Theory, even if that's a bit of a parody.
Anyway, when talking to crowds, I think the main thing is to always remember that it's a two way communication; you say something, the crowd reacts, and you move ahead, depending on how the crowd just reacted. Not word by word, exactly, but on overall. You need to sense whether the crowd is with you or not, only then can you know how to pace your presentation, and when to slow down or speed up.
For it to understand the topic throughout a whole essay, that would probably require it to have full general intelligence on par with humans. And that's very, very far into the future, still.
If Sergey Brin had told you back in 1998 that he planned to start Google, and to start indexing the web out of his garage, it would not have meant anything. Or if the Wright Brothers had confided in you that they planned to build a workable flying machine back in 1903, they would not have been running any great risk either.
What's valuable is having the vision, and the ability to connect all the little dots, and to see exactly _why_ something is a good proposition. Just hearing that something will be great usually won't help you a lot.
To quote Howard H. Aiken:
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
On the other hand, there's the eternal conflict between the waterfall model and the iterative development model. The waterfall model dictates planning (almost) everything ahead, while the iterative model says plan sufficiently far ahead, then start coding, then take a break and re-evaluate, do some more planning, do some more coding, rinse, repeat. I certainly prefer an iterative model, and building prototypes, as you do. But even then, I'd say professional development work is 90% planning ahead, and only 10% actual coding. Probably even less.
It could be that it's not the input latency itself, but rather the tapered nature of the wind instrument attack curve. If a tapered attack curve is used to set of the playback of a sample, that could in itself also introduce extra input latency. It's not entirely clear what's happening here.
Edit: I notice that the post below says they're using Delphi for both the PC and the Mac version now... It could be a recent development. Last year there were posts on the Image-Line forums saying they were still using Free Pascal, due to the fact that Delphi (at that point) could not produce 64 bit binaries for Mac.
If the authorities try to tamper with the central copy of the voting data, it will be checked by the multiple copies owned by the general public.
I think that's the general idea one should pursue. Not "secure hardware".