/prog/ - [C++] delete considered harmful

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 14:13

The unbridled use of the delete statement has as an immediate consequence that it becomes terribly hard to find a meaningful set of coordinates in which to describe the process progress. ... The delete statement as it stands is just too primitive, it is too much an invitation to make a mess of one's program.

Never use delete, use smart pointers, memory pools, stack allocations. Don't break RAII.

Name: AiHasBeenSolved 2016-01-02 14:26

Switch to Perl6.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3017418/application-development/developers-can-unwrap-perl-6-on-christmas.html

Use perl6 to code Strong AI (artificial intelligence)

http://ai.neocities.org/AiSteps.html

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 14:43

C++ considered harmful.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 15:32

>>3

prove it?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 16:10

>>4
no?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 16:24

>>5
why don't you explain to me? Did I do anything wrong?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 16:30

>>6
yes?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 16:35

*grabs dick?*

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 16:40

>>7
please tell me my mistake and I fix it.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 16:53

The way to do it in Seeples is to combine new[] with free().

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 17:00

>>1
Wow, it's 2016 already and you only now realize this?

Well, what can I say, http://natethesnake.com/

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 20:23

>>11
Wow, it's 2016 already and you still are forgetting dubs.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 20:56

>>12

2 - 0 - 1 - 6

2 + 1 = 3
6 / 2 = 3
33 = dubs year

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 21:21

>>13
2 / 0 / 1 / 6 = oh shit!

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 21:51

2 more years is 2018

20 / 18

put that into your calculator and check ‘em

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 21:55

>>13,14
666+666+666+6+6+6
999+9+666+6+333+3

"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.” - Nikola Tesla

Name: Cudder !cXCudderUE 2016-01-03 2:49

>>1
7/10, but you forgot to mention endofunctors and homozygotic Abelian group theory.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-03 6:57

>>1

The delete statement as it stands is just too primitive, it is too much an invitation to make a mess of one's program.

EVERYTHING in C and C++ are primitive operations. That's kind of the entire point of those shit languages. You don't deal with those if you want proper high level computational expression.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-03 8:37

>>18
new and delete ARE high level computational expressions and are also overloadable to run init functions or data generation procedures.
free/malloc/calloc/alloca is the primitive operation. and are just a layer above heap management code.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-03 8:45

>>19
No! malloc is not primitive, it depends on OS's memory manager.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-03 10:05

>>19
overloading ≠ abstraction

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-03 14:00

hey

all

!!

look

here

!!

check

out

my

dubs

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-03 17:41

>>9
You became gay

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-04 12:50

>>18
Why are you being serious and making perfect points?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-04 13:14

>>24
It was a good point except for "shit languages." Only one of {C, C++} is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-04 14:27

>>25
C xor C++ is shit flame war, go!

My take on it is that if you're going to use portable assembly, use C; if you want higher-level features, use a decent programming language that's both immensely more powerful and astonishingly easier to learn and use (i.e. fewer bugs).

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-04 20:24

>>26
So you mean C++

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-05 10:24

>>27
I see you missed "immensely more powerful" (it's marginally more powerful, especially compared to Lisp or whatever), and "astonishingly easier" (lol @ stupid ass-backwards C++ twattery all day long).

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 6:44

>>27
>>28
No, I meant if you want low-level use C; if you want high-level use Lisp or anything else rather than C++ which is kind of pointless.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 7:50

>>28
>>29

Keep deceiving yourselves with "C++ is bad lang !!" meme, enjoy your non-productivity.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 8:04

>>29,30
Please optimize your quotes and stop replying to yourself.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 8:22

>>31
OPTIMIZE MEME XDD

as if you don't prefer LISP over C++. LE OPTIMIZE XDD, LE CHOOSE WORSE, LESS POWERFUL LANGUAGE BUT TALK ABOUT OPTIMIZATION MEME XD

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 8:23

optimize these dubs

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 9:06

>>26

C xor C++

That would be ++.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 14:49

>>32
The facts on the ground are that LISP is unusable
for writing fast code. If instead of circle-jerking
about its power and expressiveness, the compilers were
optimized to the level of GCC, LISP would be taken
seriously and used for development of performance-critical
software instead of toy programs and scripts.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 15:18

>>35

GC
development of performance-critical

software
Nice one, bro.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 17:07

>>32
I said nothing about Lisp, idiot, I asked you to optimize your quotes.

>>36
Who are you quoting?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 17:12

>>35
McCarthy had carte blanche to develop LISP. Billions of dollars and hundreds of MIT students were poured into the LISP swindle.

compilers were optimized to the level of GCC

GCC is a Free project. If billions of dollars in funding can't make LISP as fast as GCC, that isn't a problem with money, it's a problem with LISP. There are other important things besides being fast, but LISP, despite the MIT brain drain, fails at them too.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 17:45

https://justindomke.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/the-stalin-compiler/

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 18:20

>>38
No one cared to optimize LISP, since they would just invent AI and make the AI do it. If you wanted speed, you would use Fortran. Lisp was not invented for that use case.

[C++] delete considered harmful

1 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 14:13

2 Name: AiHasBeenSolved 2016-01-02 14:26

3 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 14:43

4 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 15:32

5 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 16:10

6 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 16:24

7 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 16:30

8 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 16:35

9 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 16:40

10 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 16:53

11 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 17:00

12 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 20:23

13 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 20:56

14 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 21:21

15 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 21:51

16 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 21:55

17 Name: Cudder !cXCudderUE 2016-01-03 2:49

18 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-03 6:57

19 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-03 8:37

20 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-03 8:45

21 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-03 10:05

22 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-03 14:00

23 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-03 17:41

24 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-04 12:50

25 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-04 13:14

26 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-04 14:27

27 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-04 20:24

28 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-05 10:24

29 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 6:44

30 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 7:50

31 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 8:04

32 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 8:22

33 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 8:23

34 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 9:06

35 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 14:49

36 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 15:18

37 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 17:07

38 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 17:12

39 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 17:45

40 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-06 18:20