mccoyst

How is Github a monopoly? Bitbucket, Google Code, and even junky old SourceForge are far from unpopular.

Upvoted. They maintain it by introducing an endless stream of bugs and vulnerabilities.

People are upset because they wanted to be part of the elite club that maybe possibly would have had their DNT header honored, but now that it's likely that a huge percentage of other people on the web will have the header enabled, suddenly the header will be useless for sure.

If this header would have only been useful if it was only enabled by a small set of people, then it has always been stupid, and is in no way Microsoft's fault. Imagine a perfect world where everyone using IE organically decided to poke around in their browser settings, find, understand, and enable DNT. Are the trackers now somehow less justified when they ignore it in this perfect world? No, the motivator is the same — they want to track as many people as possible and "disabled by default" is just a thin excuse. People that are defending the idea of trackers ignoring DNT because of IE are engaging in some weird kind of corporatism.

Is anyone else disappointed that the best answer (the standard div() function) was passed over in favor of massively inefficient bit-twiddling wankery?

Maybe things are different on Dalvik, but javac for the Oracle JVM is about as braindead as a java compiler can get; all of the optimizing is done during JIT.

A rule for multiple output files:

    output1 output2: deps

Here's a makefile: http://code.google.com/p/min-game/source/browse/makefile

Here's the dependency script: http://code.google.com/p/min-game/source/browse/dep.sh

Both inspired by code in "Recursive Make Considered Harmful", always worth a read: http://aegis.sourceforge.net/auug97.pdf

The built-in rules and variables for gnu make are worthless for anything but the most trivial project; don't bother with them. I'd be so happy if there was a makefile directive that forced make to run in "make -rR" mode.

"low-level rigid type system"

You've never written C.

You still need entities for reserved characters like & and <

There's no difference between implementing method dispatch with multiple inheritance versus multiple interfaces. What do you think C++'s multiple inheritance problems are? As long as Oracle doesn't add data members to interfaces, Java won't get any new problems.

The preprocessor, and conditional compilation especially, are not something to love about C. That is probably one of C's most hateful, code-goop enabling capabilities.

I do mean almost everything; C has many problems: The preprocessor, no modules, annoying to correctly and portably write even seemingly simple things like signed integer calculations, error handling, resource management, almost anything involving arrays is a pain. I could go on, if I were in a worse mood. Go solve all of those for me, keeping the same clean feeling of C, yet is actually clean and simpler.

Either you don't know Java or you don't know Go, because the way the two do things almost couldn't be more different. The JVM and the requirement that every non-primitive be a class that inherits from Object are not small differences.

Very few people/projects use Forth…

But, I can think of one or two way more popular and significant counterexamples (although I don't disagree with his general sentiment): Perl and Ruby.

Go solves almost all of the problems that C introduces, how's that sound?

I'm really surprised that people think consoles are currently a niche market for games, after an example like Call of Duty selling 8.4 million copies in the US in a month, with almost all of the copies on consoles, not PC. And if ever there was a PC-friendly genre, it's the first-person shooter.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/31995/Exclusive_Black_Ops...

The console market is fine and most of what Ars claims has been said at the cusp of every new console generation.

The original Playstation came out in 1994 and wasn't discontinued until 2009. The PS2 is still being manufactured. PS3 still has a while to go by that metric. If you want to talk time between models, PS1-to-PS2 was 6 years, and PS2-PS3 was 6 years, leaving PS4 to be only slightly behind the curve if it comes out next year.

Consoles have always been subpar in some way or another compared to top-of-the-line PCs at release; that article's claim is silly. My PC at the release of the PS3 had four times the PS3's RAM, and it wasn't even top-of-the-line. One of the biggest benefits of targeting a console is that it's a stable, homogeneous platform.

Tablets and phones aren't the new consoles, they're the new GameBoys. In that way, I agree with you that they could hurt Nintendo the most, mainly by virtue of the DS having been the leader in that market.

Why did you decide to use autoconf?

Clang is not gigabytes big. Even the uncompressed source code for it and LLVM (which are very big) aren't in the gigabytes.

http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#3.0

One of his first examples is additionally absurd and is either the flimsiest of strawmen or he simply doesn't understand when exceptions should be used:

    try {
        ...
        int rc = fx ();
        if (rc != 0)
            throw std::exception ("Error!");
        ...
    catch (std::exception &e) {
        handle_exception ();
    }

Why is he throwing exceptions and catching them within the same function? His "C equivalent" is what he should've been doing in C++.

Yeah, I miss domo-kun.

Exactly what? C99 doesn't have any killer features that legacy code would need to "update" to. If a C89 program is working, adding unique-to-C99 features isn't going to magically make it better.

I have severals problems with this. 1) The implication that working legacy code needs to be modified to use C99 features lest it be "out of date". 2) The idea that the world is moving on to newer C standards. 3) The idea that legacy code is moving on at all.

C90 isn't going away, and it's not Microsoft's fault. Many C compilers still support 1st edition K&R style for a reason — old C code is going to stick around, and it's probably not going to change much, let alone in any way that needs C99 features.

You say that like they are removing all C support. Unless that "legacy" code suddenly mutates to use C99 features that aren't in C++, it'll still compile in the future.

What rule did he break? What advice did he give?

"The validity of a logical argument has NOTHING to do with the actual veracity (rightness or wrongness) of the propositions."

This is on the poster.

I don't think that most people understand the GPL. Everybody understands the basic spirit of it, but there are lots of details spread throughout that huge document. The preamble is longer than many permissive licenses. .That there is a preamble at all speaks to the complexity. It's too much for a small group or individual without access to a lawyer, and I don't think people in these cases are going to use a license that they don't fully understand.