skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
OO with class hierarchies is a broken model.

I am not sure whether C++ is a good target for this criticism. The most frequently used libraries (STL and Boost) don't use class hierarchies extensively.

Also, some domains are easily modelled using class hierarchies, such as GUI widgets, where more specialized widgets override or extend behaviour (or painting) of more general widgets. I have programmed Qt for years, and the class hierarchy model works exceptionally well there.

Algebraic datatypes and pattern matching have been around for years,

They come with advantages and disadvantages. E.g. adding a constructor potentially requires you to update every pattern matching case. This can get quite ugly quickly if you add a constructor to some commonly-used library.

I do like them in cases where you know up-front what constructors there will be. E.g. lightweight error handling with Maybe/Either. Or when their visibility is limited.

Parallel programming has been around for years, and is becoming CRITICAL for modern applications. If your language doesn’t EASILY support it, it sucks.

Luckily, parallel programming is very easy in C++ using e.g. OpenMP or Intel TBB. In the case of OpenMP it is usually a matter of adding pragmas to your embarrassingly parallel loops. It is concurrency that is more of a problem. C++11 has standardized lot of 'old-world' constructs for threading, but it's not as if you can find a mature technology like Erlang's OTP or Akka on top of C++.

C++ has a RIDICULOUS amount of boiler plate.

I agree that there is a lot of boilerplate. But then the author goes off ranting about constructors. I don't find it that convincing. There used to be a lot of boilerplate in iterator and <algorithm> use, but C++11 makes things much more compact with auto et al. IMO one of the biggest sources of boilerplate in C++ is writing libraries such that you have ABI compatibility. You usually end up using PIMPL for every class, maintaining two versions (PIMPL and actual) of each class.

Then, there are other languages that come with a lot of boilerplate, such as Java, but the difference is that Java is much easier to parse, process, and incrementally compile. As a consequence, Java IDEs tend to be much better at code generation and refactoring than C++ IDEs.

The same problems that make highly-parallel code a nightmare in C++ also make it an unsuitable language for security-critical, or mission-critical projects.

Yes, it is extremely easy to blow your foot of. Forgetting a 'virtual' keyword can lead to subtle, difficult to find bugs. You can read or write beyond bounds by accident. Etc. These are well-known critiques. Use C++ (or another unsafe language) when it's necessary to trade off safety for performance. Rust will probably bring performance while sacrificing less safety. But it's not there yet.
Nice I'm sure a few of those at the same time could crash some websites!
More like 64 bit computers are 2^32 times as fast as 32 bit computers.
Can't you weaponize non-nuclear EMP?
> Maybe. This is one of the philosophy of C++ is "don't pay for what you don't want".

Exactly, many of the warts and gotchas of C++ can be explained through this philosophy. If a certain feature is or hard to use or difficult to understand but faster during runtime the C++ committee will most likely pick this over an implementation of the same feature that is easy to use but slower during runtime.
The Benchmark with Go REST API Server
I think this is confusing.

If C++ has to go because the paradigm is wrong, because it has to be replaced by say more functional languages, OK. But then so does Java, C# and so on.

Now, if C++ has to go because of some language aspects, I disagree. There is no point. The language is good enough and can still be improved.

When I choose C++ over other languages I don't do it because I like the language, I do it because it generates native code, because of manual control of the memory management, because templates can be useful to solve some problems elegantly, etc.
> To top it off, I had the best lamb and rice meal I've ever had...for $5 from a halal food cart. (I actually spent an hour today looking for the cart again, I liked it THAT much, but it was nowhere to be found. I will look again tomorrow!!)

If I were to guess, I'd say it was Halal Boys Platters on 53rd and 6th. Those guys are legendary.
>> Headers shouldn’t exist in the language:
> Yes, but as you said it will be addressed in C++ 14.

Links please re headers solution in C++ 14, Google and Wikipedia didn't return results.
Manhattan is also dense and rich enough to be worth trying to save.
Can this technology write to the thinking parts of the brain?

If the answer is "yes," then this can augment human thinking capabilities -- the rest is just improving bitrates of the human <-> computer channel and writing better software. Both of which are challenging and rewarding research areas, to be sure. But they sound a lot more like straightforward engineering with predictable improvements from research investment, rather than requiring basic research / fundamental discoveries.
just curious but, why would you expect any appreciable improvement from the emulator version?
Snowden/nsa shows hypocritical Russia?
Most items on the Finder Sidebar have their own keyboard shortcuts and are available from the Go menu. Here’s an overview: http://imgur.com/Ho0lfrt

Here are some other solutions: http://superuser.com/questions/90378/
New app lets you publish your own Games in Real Time
Weird, I just get plain text. This links work, but no color.
Has David Birnbaum solved the mystery of existence?
I find unrounded prices annoying as well because it forces me to perform a number of extra calculations. If I look at for example the price of Github being $7/month I immediately think Thank you.

When I look at the price of a pack of gummy bears and it's $1.96 I am forced to think $2. Then I have to keep in the back of my mind the fact that if I pay with cash I'm getting bad change and then I think what am I going to do with 4 cents?

I may get overly annoyed by this but please list actual prices. $1.96 is $2.

When prices don't include tax I don't bother with the calculation so I don't even know how much it's going to cost. Then I try and spend all the stupid change people keep giving me and people are impatient that I didn't count it ahead of time. You know maybe I would if I had known what the price was going to be even a moment before I was being asked for it. In most cases if it wasn't out of necessity I wouldn't shop at any of these places.
The Darkest Place on the Internet Isn't Just for Criminals
"I think that object orientedness is almost as much of a hoax as Artificial Intelligence. I have yet to see an interesting piece of code that comes from these OO people."

This someone is Alexander Stepanov the author of the STL (the C++ Standard Library).

Authority doesn't make it true ;) : How about Qt? Or Cocoa?

OO was overhyped. It doesn't fit every problem domain. That doesn't mean the opposite is true. There are domains where OO with class hierarchies is quite a good model, such as GUI toolkits.

Try this keyword: "template".

Templates are a compile-time construct. Algebraic data types are not. I think you are confusing ADTs with parametric polymorphism.

According to you, programs written in Java or .NET should be more secure. That's not the case.

Proof it. I think it is reasonable to assume that Java code produced by the average programmer is safer than C++ code produced by the average programmer. Java does not have pointer arithmetic, does bounds checking, etc.
Yes, I'd be interested to hear about this too - my suspicion is that ppc ads will have a pretty woeful ROI for books (would love to be proved wrong).
I think he refers to this http://clang.llvm.org/docs/Modules.html See also http://isocpp.org/blog/2012/11/modules-update-on-work-in-pro...
American northern midwest is colder than what most of Canada's population experiences.
Great to see 99designs in there. I am of the opinion that digital marketplaces will be the future of self-publishing services, by providing writers with the opportunity to connect with providers with 'in-house' experience. Can make a massive difference (as Roy's endeavours will attest to...).
From their docs:

Note: Please be patient. It may take a long time to train the data model the first time even for very small dataset. It is normal because PredictionIO implements an distributed algorithm by default, which is not optimized for small dataset. You can change that later.

Sums up my experience with the Mahout/Hadoop world nicely. Not a good fit for small-medium projects -- too complex, too cumbersome, too slow. By the time you really need the scale (=often never, save for using "Big Data" for marketing), you're big enough and know enough about your domain to roll a custom, efficient, domain-optimized solution.

Bringing machine learning to the masses is an honourable goal though, so thumbs up for PredictionIO.
> If this is true, there is nothing that forces you to write classes in C++. You have all the freedom to write only in functions and structs.

Functions and structs is not much freedom. But you're quite right: nothing forces you to write in C++.

> I think C++ is not going "to go" anywhere and is here to stay for a long, long time, and have it's place in programming language "pantheon" similar to C.

Sure. Or COBOL, or any other number of languages in which massive legacy codebases have been written. At best, one avoids them in their own work.

> Restrictive language is a good way of preventing bugs, but in C++ you can just select what language features you are gonna use and have similar result.

Even when you whittle down the feature list far beyond what you can still reasonably expect to be even remotely productive with, simple matters like uninitialized variables can still go uncaught if your compiler can't catch every single use case and you don't wade through a slew of false positives with maximum warnings and warnings as errors. One is forced to use time-expensive static code analysis, enforced by CI build process, to begin to even remotely approach the general runtime safety of something like C#.

These options are extremely useful when you're stuck with a C++ codebase, but I wouldn't describe it so casually, as if they were quick and simple to implement and enforce.
These days, I think it is valid to take "over the Internet" out of the equation when deciding if something is impressive. For most applications, the Internet is a black box for transferring bits.

For "over the Internet" to be interesting, it needs to be pushing then boundaries of the Internet in some way.
Good question, I am not sure :) There can be many reasons. But the problem modeling is surely very different in its D-Wave form so the fact that there are improvements doesn't mean that it is because of quantum effects.

Other than that, too limited experiments, comparing specialized vs general algorithms, sub optimal classical algorithms are also possible reasons.
Think about the huge amount of computing power currently used to run gmail on millions of web browsers, servers, and apps. It could be viewed as one big computer program that just happens to run different parts on different devices. The benefit of separating it into parts is that it gives the program close proximity to different data. A massively parallel system would have to divide data into chunks that are separated by latency and bandwidth limitations in a similar way. The language abstractions are less important than the unavoidable physical limitations. Surely the event driven approach of Javascript is a good solution to this latency problem?
I was raised in Miami and my family lives there still as well! We should meet up some time and complain about Miami together, haha. I agree with all the points you made.

Miami has quite a shallow population. I've also found as time goes on that as I develop new interests, there is poor community around most of them--the little things like rock climbing or playing ping pong. It's even extremely difficult to find a coffee shop to work out of when I visit family.
Where is my Optimus driver for Linux?
Exactly this, why the "pure" label when obviously not? The main reason for me to click through to this thing was exactly that; I love seeing people push an individual tech like CSS on its own: there's nothing tech-wise news worthy in oldschool js/css solution like this.
The deleted answer was actually a great point, it was basically a nitpick on the first sentence of David Z's answer.

A proton is really made of quantum fields.

The problem with this statement is, that a observed object is said to be made of a mathematical abstraction. So in a way, this is saying that a raytracer is made of C. If we look into the ELF binary, we will find shell code, if we look at the computer very closely we will find electrical signals, but we will only find C in the reverse engineered source code. So similarly, the statement should probably read:

A proton is described as made of quantum fields.

However, it is still important to remind everybody, that the popular analogy of high energy physics, particles which interact much like billiard balls, is a somewhat leaky abstraction. And this question is probably more a expression of this leaking than a question of fundamental physics. If we would make the classical analogy, that a proton is (described as) a stable field configuration, then we would probably not have the question.
Because telling the display to turn one pixel at a time will require crazy bandwidth, and plus that's not how monitors or videocards or drivers or software work.
What you call "noise" is the compiler catching a type-mismatch bug before it goes out into production.
Yes they should do. Maybe not 2x with every cubid, but definitely exponentially - for larger "state space" as you call it. This is what makes them different from classical model.
13 Successful Entrepreneurs Share What They Wish They'd Known 5 Years Ago
1986: End of Cobol predicted.

1987: End of Fortran predicted.

1988: End of Cobol predicted.

1989: End of Fortran predicted.

http://philipps-welt.info/pdfs/forecast_86_96.pdf
This have changed a lot, specially in the Wynwood / Design District / Midtown area (3 of Downtown's neighborhoods).

And I gonna be the first one to say it I think... I remember during PyCodeconf 2 years ago many of the attendees from SF were really impressed by the amount of women here (beautiful ones) that even the most introverted (I am one of those) can find someone here. For girls too, also, since people are really obsessed with fitness here. That's pretty shallow but hey we didn't come out with Tinder ;-) you guys did.

The fun time we have at nightclubs (now there are many hipster bars and venues) is really unmatchable, I went out 3 times this week (it's just friday night) and the places were still going hard at 5am, not only that, there are places that close very late and open early (Will Call, from 12pm to 7am) or open at 3am (Mekka and Space). I might sound like a party guy but I'm not, this is very typical of Miami.

I'm not gonna tell you, you can find smarter people here, since that would be a lie, but artsy people? Probably, and very good looking.

About the affordability, I live in front of Bayfront Park (the biggest park in Downtown, walking distance from AAA) the apartment is beautiful, and the building is like living in a hotel, pool (with a bar and full staff), gym, spa, all that for only $1650 (and my neighbors pay a lot less, I'm just a bad negotiator), check it out: http://www.vizcayne.com/
It could have been done twenty years ago, and it will not progress beyond what is shown here: causing a given muscle to twitch.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation is inherently imprecise and brutish. It causes all the neurons in the target brain area (3-4 cm^3) to discharge at once. Depending on the intensity of the stimulation, you can recruit more or less neurons, but it is not selective.

For most of the brain, it just disrupts the activity for less than a second, causing a "virtual lesion". This is useful for brain mapping research, but that's it.

When you zap the motor cortex, it also sends action potentials down the spine, which in turn stimulate the motor neurons then the muscles.

The hardware is bulky and unpractical [0]. You could maybe use two coils per brain hemisphere, and then, you must stimulate areas distant from one another.

For the foreseeable future the only mind control techniques are propaganda and manipulative behavior, with some drugs sprinkled in for good measure. No need to worry about this.

[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=transcranial+magnetic+stimul...
So you also effectively acknowledge the content of the whole David's answer. The nitpicking point is just the very first sentence, not anything material in the answer, and only that he wrote "is really made of" instead of "is currently best described as made of." Nitpicking indeed, and irrelevant to anybody reading the whole answer and comparing it with the rest. Because he explicitly shows what and how we are now able to observe, compute and predict. It's the others that present the topic in absolutes.

Once we accept the basic staring point that physics is the loop in which we do the experiments, refine the models, then refine the experiments, etc, we simply don't need to insist on disclaimers that we do it that that way in every our statement.

Most of the other answers come from the previous iterations of the described loop, David's from the more recent.
> This would be clearer if we didn't let submitters enter a title-- if our software simply let people submit urls, and retrieved the title from the page. We don't do this because it's too inflexible.

The hard and fast rule software would use is too inflexible, ok, I'm with you.

> The only way we can tell if a newly created title is accurate is to read the article, and we're not about to read every article submitted to HN. The only option is to revert to the original title, which is at least what the author intended.

But the hard and fast rule of a moderator that won't read an article is all good. Hmmn.
You wouldn't, and right now, it's debatable whether there is any or not. Hence the entire controversy
That's just asinine. Think about it.

"Not eating is a style of cuisine, just like Ethiopian or Italian, because those darn anorexics are just so vehement about it."
You have terrible taste if you can only appreciate a dish in one form. Deep Dish is different but its great. Personally I think its even better. Deep dish feels more special and like a meal, but I would only ever want to it once a month.

I like NYC pizza, at least from the major famous places. Your typical corner pizza is no better than any other corner pizza place on the east coast.

I live in Tokyo right now and I definitely eat better than I did in NYC. NYC only has Tokyo beat on prices, since both places only have mediocre Mexican food.
>>So in a way, this is saying that a raytracer is made of C?

Yes, but isn't it?

>>The problem with this statement is, that a observed object is said to be made of a mathematical abstraction.

These fields are very real, it is our understanding of them that is perhaps inaccurate!
do people not understand that this is just fake it til you make it? it doesn't matter if it's an emulator if they are paying the right people and working on it. do you think reddit just hoped it would get better at posting as bots? that's ridiculous.
ScreenBro
> Standing on a raft in the middle of a lake.

Water, it's time to go. We don't need water anymore!

> Standing in the middle of a desert.

It would be great if we had more water!

This is literally what these arguments for or against C++ sound like. Please, before you decide some language needs to go, take the time to understand the context in which it should or should not be used.
> The problem is behind the keyboard and the chair.

The human will make mistakes, as that is what humans do. That's not fundamentally fixable: even the savant will make the occasional error. Compilers and static code analysis can help mitigate the human factor, as can code reviews and any number of other variables.

Static code analysis and "safe" languages seek to mitigate the problem. They are not the only variables in the security equation, but holding everything else constant, given three codebases written in C, C++, and C#, I'll just outright assume the first two will have at least one buffer overflow that's potentially exploitable for arbitrary code injection. The third, at least, has a chance of said overflow being "merely" a potential DoS vulnerability.
Is it interesting why appealing to the public was needed? For financing, or discussion?
Crowd Funded Travels
http://signup.trevolta.com/invite/93NAH17213

The website, which is in its beta stage as of now, claims to help raise funds for people who wish to travel.

In addition it also promises $50 to the people who get selected for the primary launch.

I'd like to get people's views on this.

Is there any chance that this is genuine? And if it is, what're the chances that it will work?
How's the crime rate in Miami?
Since the entanglement model is different why would you expect the same performance increase?
$2000 to get started with Google Cloud Platform Promo Code: root-in
Just to the point, I am located in Russia where print copy of this book would appear in 6months to year if at all. Technology allowed me purchase this book and read it right away.

It is all about focus and determination nowadays, just like it always was. And way back it took some real patience and a highly structured approach to achieve any kind of success. And now you can the cake and eat it too - compared to effort you needed to expend in nineties to create something. Information wasn't just everywhere, tracing compiler bugs could make you go down one or other rabbit hole for days if not week or two.
Oh interesting, thanks for the link!
You have a yellow pages?
I find it strange that the buildings (Statue of Liberty, have faces on their first level). Why is this?
Same here, because they noticed I am "engaged in https://github.com/playframework/playframework". I've not even tried Play, let alone been "engaged" in it. Really unsolicited.
Many proof of concepts are not very interesting. They are mostly a collection of existing techniques to prove a point, often to the general public: that we are capable of doing this with current technology.
Thanks. But is this actually ready for the C++ 14? Any formal contribution document to the standard guys?
Coach Discount,Coach Discount Store,Coach Outlet
The art of liquid cooling has been demonstrated by Aquasar
and put to work inside the German supercomputer SuperMUC
which - *perversely* - harnesses warm water to cool its
circuits.

How is it perverse to cool hot circuits with warm water?
Does the author make any point besides "I don't understand it therefore it's stupid"?

(I wrote more but then deleted it because this article is trash. And I might wanna add that I'm not a mathematician.)
Do you know how to do that from node?

Here's the little test service I wrote to stream out some gzipped content:

https://github.com/jimhigson/oboe.js/blob/master/test/stream...
No, although that's a nice idea and something I'd like to look into.
hey facebook, please replace all your core c++ infrastructure with haskell/rust/D/ruby because this guy had decided that its time for c++ to go.

all those high frequency trading systems too. you need to replace everything. gc pauses are nothing compared to the elegance of other languages.

as you can clearly read its just not the right language for parallelism, and all those headers make 3m lines of code harder to read not easier. also all those bloody class hierarchies..
I think it depends on which philosophical school of though you subscribe to. One could just as well argue that the concept of a "proton" is just a useful abstraction and the quantum field is not just a mathematical tool but a more fundamental model of the underlying reality - that ontologically, the field is what actually exists.