There is no reason to use std::endl in C++

https://youtu.be/GMqQOEZYVJQ

There is no reason to use jewtube in /prog/.

followed by a flush

He is actually wrong. If I am not mistaken \n flushes the buffers by default in stdout, meaning that he does actually two flushes.

>>3
This is why I just use stdio.h instead of iostream. Everyone knows how the POSIX libraries work and there's no confusion about it. C++ is great, but the STL in general has too much rope. I think Bjarne Stroustrup himself said that he doesn't use iotream.

What a loser with a literally stupid editor that can't even tell him that his compilation is going to fail. It wastes so much time in the video having to do a manual edit/compile cycle for each little tidbit, one can only imagine how much time it wastes of his life.

(And because the existence of Cudder's mentality fucking pisses me off to no end, this is why we want better features in our software, so we don't have to waste our fucking human time!)

>>4

C++ is great

I don't like you.

>>1

There is no reason to use [..] C++

There, I fixed it.

>>7
Object oriented programming like you'd do in C++ makes developing and extending big systems easy because OOP designed to be far more modular and self-contained that simple imperative programming

>>6
I find that it's way easier to make something useful in C++ than C. There are just too many times that you might need those high level features. That said, the majority of people misuse C++ majorly, and it's justified to avoid it based on the way most people use it.

There is no reason to use the iostreams library.

>>8
You can't do object-oriented programming in a strongly class-oriented language like C++.

>>5
And then humans turn into drooling idiots controlled by machines.

>>8
It "makes developing and extending big systems easy" but the question you should be asking yourself is whether systems actually need to be that big.

endl does flush, because segfaults are frequent in C/C++, so flushing helps saving data.

TLDR: if it ain't lisp, it is crap.

>>12

And then humans turn into drooling idiots controlled by machines.

Being the idiotic piece of shit you are (and fuck off and die, already), you don't even see how backwards the shit that comes out of your mouth is.

The video IS a prime example of the human idiot serving the machine. The machine (due to shitfucker cancer programmers like you) won't do any work, so the human has to slave back and forth to solve something that the machine could INSTANTLY solve for him. Every rote automatable action a person does like this is drooling and mindless, because the computer won't carry its weight in the task, but also requires no real mental effort except the passage of time.

I see now why you like working like this. It reinforces your drooling, brainless idiocy. You can feel happy and justified in turning off what little brain you have to perform redundant, brainless tasks, because you have nothing beyond that in your universe of possibilities. Your playing around with computers is simply masturbation with the simplest, non-challenging aspects of it. You remain in the kiddie pool of programming, while the rest of the world is working on spaceships.

The whole "do systems actually need to be that big" statement just tells how small your mind is. The full extent of your mental potential is shorter than your dick. You don't know how much you don't know, and proudly proclaim it.

You are a failure at life, a failure at communication, a failure at faking intelligence, a failure at software & computing, and a waste of time and space on this planet.

>>14
upvoted

>>15
>he's a cudder shill
>he does it for free

>>14

The whole "do systems actually need to be that big" statement just tells how small your mind is

Installing and using Visual Studio or any other Microsoft products shows unequivocally that you're full of shit, buddy. The corporate world is engaged in a bloat race not "make it as simple as it can be" race, because shitty Hindu coders justify their existence by showing their boss how many lines of code they've written.

>>14
LOL #rekt

>>16,18
If you love /g/ so much, why do you come here?

>>17
All the simple problems are already solved, you fucknut. Dicking around in the kiddie pool with Cudder isn't something to be proud of.

>>20
A hard problem does not necessarily imply a large, bloated solution, you shithead. Now go fuck your own authority-worshipping (yes, authority-hating is a form of authority-worshipping) ass.

>>21
they why have they invented Perl 6?

>>22
Because Larry has received only linguistic education, meaning he is technically illiterate and unable to design good programming languages.

>>22
They ran out of problems to solve so now they're creating more of their own.

>>21
Tell me what "bloat" is. Nobody ever defines it. It's basically anything that your reptilian brain can't understand why it was included. By definition, anybody complaining about "bloat" is a fucking moron.

Sure, complain about instability or whatever, but "bloat" is just a coverup word for "I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about because I'm in over my head".

>>25
Try installing Visual Studio. The thing's over 10 GB now. It's a glorified compiler with text autocomplete, for fuck's sake, why does it have to weigh over 10 GB? Because some Chandrah Singh in Redmond needs to impress his boss with his 10000 LOC a day?

By definition, anybody complaining about "bloat" is a fucking moron.

IHBT.

>>26
And VS is also shit slow. Well of course it is, if the computer has to run 10GB worth of crap it can't be fast, but it's pretty horrible to use because of slowness. I have no idea why so many programmers think Visual Studio is in any way decent.

>>27
Actually, you'll probably never run more than 5% of the crap that ships with VS.

>>26
Visual Studio includes a whole range of development libraries and also documentation.

>>28
You're an idiot. A product is not tailored per-customer to be limited and optimized to only the exact things that particular customer is doing. I'm so fucking sick of backward luddite shitfuckers like you demanding we go backwards. Go shove a 486 chip up your urethra.

Also, who the fuck cares how big something is? 10GB is nothing on a harddrive nowadays, even on SSD. I'd rather have everything at hand, than have to pick and choose between disparate tools whenever I needed a different feature.

>>30
and in addition, I'm not even a Visual Studio user. I'm on Linux for fuck's sake, and I'm defending a piece of shit like VS to you nincompoops because you're too stupid to even understand why something sucks or not, going to red herrings like "10GB ROFLCOPTER BLOAT DUR DUR HODOR!"

>>30
Lazy retarded pig.

>>32
Marry me.

I want Cudder to step on me while she calls me a lazy retarded pig.

>>30
Bloated code does not only mean more wasted time on installation, startup and during runtime, it also means more bugs and less reliability. VS and any other bloated product is full of quirks, inconsistencies and outdated relics because the shitty coders that created it don't know how to find anything in the code. 10GB is not nothing, especially on older or cheap office machines that are still widely in use, but the fact that you make just this argument as if the only wrong thing about bloat was size on disk shows you're just clueless. Yeah, good for you that you don't have to use Visual Studio, otherwise you wouldn't spew this bullshit.

And then there is something to say about beauty and satisfaction which invariably require conciseness and simplicity. But you wouldn't care anything for beauty, you would just happily eat faeces-rich corporate bloatware in your pigsty, huh? People like you are the reason this industry is in such a deep shithole.

The alternative to "bloat" is software that doesn't have the features you want. Suck it up and live in the real world.

>>36
No, the alternative is between software that works efficiently and correctly, and software that is bloated and buggy.

>>35
What the fuck are you doing installing a Windows application development environment on an older or cheap office machine that's widely in use?

And then there is something to say about beauty and satisfaction which invariably require conciseness and simplicity. But you wouldn't care anything for beauty, you would just happily eat faeces-rich corporate bloatware in your pigsty, huh?

Subjective feelings bullshit. Software either works for its purpose and constraint or it does not work for its purpose and constraint. It's that simple.

>>37
That is a false dichotomy.

>>34
http://i.imgur.com/Hn58N1C.jpg

>>39
Cudder is a man. That's the Japanese drawing of a girl and therefore very inaccurate.

Check em

Bloated software has more value than non-bloated. Otherwise people would be buying non-bloated software.

>>40
You don't know that drawing is of a girl!

>>37
Every single term you use is shitty and objective. You are a failure with no argument. Get out of my fucking software industry and eat a shotgun, you piece of shit.

>>38

constraint

Subjective feelings bullshit. My constraint is that an IDE shouldn't take up more than 1GB.

What the fuck are you doing installing a

Why shouldn't I?

>>44
No, you.

>>42
People don't always have a choice. They often have to use what the company has bought.

>>46
Obviously, companies would buy software that makes their employees most productive with least demands on hardware. This is in their rational self-interest; companies who are bad at following their rational self-interest are outcompeted and replaced by companies who are good at it.

>>47
Nope, those are fairy tales. In the real world, companies often buy software as part of a large suite because it's cheaper that way. That's how Microsoft sells its bloatware: if a company buys Windows and Office, they throw in a Visual Studio as well and the company thinks it has saved money when in reality its employees are stuck with shitty bloatware that makes them unproductive.

>>47
Who the fuck cares about the demands on hardware? People are expensive. Giving every developer a latest & greatest decked out PC costs less than a quarter of a month's salary, and that developer's likely to be on for years.

It's only at the datacenter scale where you can spend all the optimization time to reduce real computational costs, and even in this situation the profit margin on hardware expenses is generally going to be acceptable.

You're microoptimizing things that don't matter, just to feed your own delusion that the small scope of things you know how to do are somehow important.

>>49
I used to think like this, then when I got to the real world I realized that speed still matters... a lot.

I'm not a programmer, I'm an ME. But even so the programming tasks I did required heavy optimization.

My first job out of college was at a test lab. Every once in a while I had to write software that processed data in some form. We collected a lot of data. It wasn't uncommon to be processing 20GB+ of data. Optimizations and using a sensible language can take your run time from days to hours.

My next job I was making consumer products. The products obviously had to be as cheap as possible which meant the cheapest MCU possible. Another case where memory had to optimized to painstaking measures.

So you're wrong. And not just a little bit. As computers get faster, we'll just work them harder. And we need to do this to squeeze out real productivity. Quit your damn whining and learn how to actually optimize shit.

>>50
I know how to optimize shit. And I know that optimization in general includes massive technical lock-in and prevents future modification, as well as assumes today's optimization tradeoffs when tomorrow's will change.

Speed optimization also almost always requires more hardware, for parallelization, caching, precalculation, analytics, and performance heuristics. That's the shit that makes things run fast, not some Cudderfag dicking around with deciding which asm instruction to best traverse an array. You want things running dramatically faster, it's an architectural fact that you will end up throwing much more hardware and software footprint at it as well.

>>50
Well there you go, you've experienced tasks that demand a tight account of the computing resources. The vast majority of programming tasks do not require the same level of tight accounting. Speed of processing matters but the cost of a programming team is normally more important than that. If the cost of running the software outweighs the cost of the extra time it costs to pay programmers to optimize the speed, then it's obvious that the programmer should be taking more consideration into writing the code.

>>51
Or you could just start using better languages and compilers.

>>51
Spoken like a true ENTERPRISE architecture astronaut.

>>52

the cost of running the software outweighs the cost of the extra time it costs to pay programmers to optimize the speed

Which it does for anything but trivial applications with a very limited lifespan and number of users.

User's time is more valuable than programmer's time. Especially when the user is themselves a programmer!

>>54
Dude, you said in >>50 that you work with cheap tinker toy controllers. Nobody else is actually constrained by hardware, and the software segment for those markets are tiny.

>>54

User's time is more valuable than programmer's time. Especially when the user is themselves a programmer!

More programmers should think this way.