The article makes this very point. From the article: “software has been industrialising for a long time: through reusable components (open source code), portability (containerisation, the cloud), democratisation (low-code / no-code tools), interoperability (API standards, package managers) and many other ways”
Lots of workshops, factories, university research labs, etc. still use old machinery that would be a huge waste of money to replace just because the computer that controls it runs Windows 95. In some cases it can't be replaced because the company that created the software, drivers, or IO cards is long gone.
I have a legitimate need to replicate systems that are sometimes very legacy for security research (apps that sit on top, rather than the os itself). Building stuff like a base Windows XP image is easy enough, but sometimes system updates are required - even stuff like iirc tls1.2 isn’t supported in IE6
And it's not worth risking Windows 11 destroying it by slamming the irreplaceable robotic stuff into itself in such ways that NASA or NTSB would find fancy UI animations or virtualization based security culpable. You may insist that programs that control airplanes and nuclear reactors are supposed to be written in Rust + TypeScript on daily updated Linux installation that depends on AWS us-east-1, but they would insist it ain't stupid if it works.
I’m building a reward chart app for parents. See link below. I just submitted it yesterday for review the App Store and Google Play. Now I wait. Fingers crossed.
> You can write simple, readable, and maintainable code in C++ without ever needing to use templates, operator overloading, or any of the other more advanced features of the language.
Maybe you can do that. But you are probably working in a team. And inevitably someone else in your team thinks that operator overloading and template metaprogramming are beautiful things, and you have to work with their code. I speak from experience.
This is true and I will concede this point. Appreciate your feedback!
However if I may raise my counter point I like to have a rule that C++ should be written mostly as if you were writing C as much as possible until you need some of it's additional features and complexities.
Problem is when somebody on the team does not share this view though, that much is true :)
Counter-counter point: if you're going to actively avoid using the majority of a language's features and for the most part write code in it as if it were a different language, doesn't that suggest the language is deeply flawed?
(Note: I'm not saying it is deeply flawed, just that this particular way of using it suggests so).
I wouldn't necessarily put it like that no. I'd say all languages have features that fit certain situations but should be avoided in other situations.
It's like a well equiped workshop, just because you have access to a chainsaw but do not need to use it to build a table does not mean it's a bad workshop.
C is very barebones, languages like C++. C#, Rust and so on are not. Just because you don't need all of it's features does not make those languages inherently bad.
Great question or in this case counter-counter point though.
> However if I may raise my counter point I like to have a rule that C++ should be written mostly as if you were writing C as much as possible until you need some of it's additional features and complexities.
How do you define “need” for extra features? C and C++ can fundamentally both do the same thing so if you’re going to write C style C++, why not just write C and avoid all of C++’s foot guns?
RAII. It's the major C++ feature I miss in C, and the one that fixes most memory leak problems in C. Also, std::vector, which solves the remaining memory leak (and most bounds problems) in C. And std::string, which solves the remaining memory leak problems.
That's very interesting. How do they know what's outgoing? Do they have to check the address of each letter, or is there like a separate compartment for outgoing mail?
Wow, I always had the impression the red flag is set by the mail carrier to indicate for the house owner (particularly in rural areas) that new mail is inside the box. (Hence it would save the owner a trip for checking.)
Tbh, as long as you make the mail obviously not placed by them they'll take it. (as in don't need to use a flag).
Like they always shove (or drop) it into the mailbox so when there's letters that are obstructing the box from closing properly they know they didn't place them there so it's outgoing and they grab it.
Some mailboxes have an indicator that mail has arrived, but they aren't the norm. The indicator is raised by the action of opening the door, so the mail carrier doesn't have to do anything. It is on the person getting the mail to reset the indicator. This indicator is separate from the flag that signals the carrier that there is mail to pick up.
An app for parents to motivate their kids by awarding them points for good deeds. There are existing apps out there, but I tried them and didn't like them, so I'm building my own. This is a side project for me and I only get to spend a few hours a week on it. Currently in beta testing and I hope to launch around July.
Some 20 years ago my kid's first grade teacher did something that motivated the kids to read a lot. Each kid had a small notebook where they would list books they read and the date. The parent had to sign off on each item on the list. When they completed 10, they would be eligible to pick a toy from a basket of dollar store junky toys she had in class. I think it was not just the toy (because they could get enough toys at home) but also the competition and recognition.
Speaking as a native English speaker from London: I can assure you that most Brits would get this question wrong. It is true that Brits use "jolly" to mean "very" but it is, as you've noted, informal. Brits do not use it this way in formal speech. You would have to make it clear in the question that you were talking about informal English. E.G. "Name a word that means 'happy' and can also informally mean 'very'".
Note that the question is never a single example or definition, but a starting question plus multiple clues and hints. These help to clear up ambiguities and guide the student towards the correct puzzle answer.
English is my second language so I do not create the content for the puzzles. The data comes from different publicly available sources. A quick search on Google for 'Thesaurus implode' gave me this: The thesaurus for "implode" offers several synonyms, including collapse, crumble, buckle, cave in, shatter, and fail. These words describe the act of something falling inwards or breaking apart due to pressure.
Also... Note that the cursor indicates if you typed the correct puzzle answer before you submit it. It prevents users from suggesting words that are correct answers, but not the solutions to the given puzzle.
@Tomek_zemla: The people in this thread are trying to help you. We are taking the time to tell you about our experience using your app. Feedback is a gift. Be grateful for it. Do not get defensive. If somebody tells you that they found your app baffling and difficult, then you are not going to change their mind by arguing with them. Instead, you should think about how you can change your app so that people find it useful and fun. You have the germ of a good idea for an app here. It needs more work before it's viable. We are trying to help you identify what you need to do to make it good.
- It gave me “TCAAN” which stumped me. Afterwards I pasted it into the Internet Anagram Server, which failed to find any acronyms for it. So I can say with some confidence I don’t think it’s a valid word. Suggest making sure you’re using a dictionary similar to Wordle’s one.
- The game should reveal the solution at the end if the player fails to guess any words.
The game ought to make it explicit that proper names are allowed.
But, personally, I would remove proper names, to make it more like most other word games (wordle, spelling bee, jumble, etc.). Crosswords do have proper names, but they've got the clue context to go with them.
I’m currently coding a Flutter app on a 15-year-old Dell desktop, running Linux. The experience is great. I’m running latest versions of VS Code, Flutter, you name it. It’s nice and snappy and a joy to use. I’ve upgraded RAM, SSDs, GPU over the years to keep it somewhat up to date. Eventually I’m going to have to cave in and buy a Mac so that I can publish my app for iOS. I’ve been loathe to do it though and I’ve been putting it off. This article is a great explanation of why I’ve been so loathe. It articulates reasons that were semi-subconscious for me.
Aside from it being a principled thing, Linux does work a lot better on older machines. Newer hardware tends to have shit driver support for a few years.
Like my 10 year old Asus laptop which is supposed to have horrid Linux compatibility runs multiple versions of Ubuntu with KDE perfectly, with only bluetooth crapping out occasionally.
A new Lenovo laptop that we just got at work that's supposed to be tested with linux? Completely broken, can't adjust the display brightness, can't read the battery level, touchpad doesn't work, and more. I'm sure it'll be sorted out by Ubuntu 26 or whatever, but damn is it a crap experience. Using linux on a machine that's less than 5 years old is already too bleeding edge for productivity.
That sucks. I remember buying my XPS when the new version released and tried to install Linux (Fedora). Nvidia driver issues, CPU E/P core issues, and many more. It literally took 2 years to get stable. Recently, Nvidia released a new version of the driver. Guess what happened? PC doesn't wake up from sleep anymore. I'm not even mentioning the so-called 8-hour battery life.
The latest Mac minis have a great reputation although it’s been a little over a decade since I’ve personally used a MacBook as my daily driver. Every year I tell myself “this is the year I buy one of those Apple silicon MacBooks”. I have a Lenovo P50 collecting dust and primarily use a desktop tower I built for personal or my employer’s Lenovo X1 Yoga for work.
