|
This seems like a good time to recommend this book http://www.elementsofprogramming.com/book.html
|
# ? Sep 26, 2011 22:17 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 13:26 |
|
baquerd posted:I certainly tend to agree and a point well made. But what if you took your car apart in the driveway and built it from the frame up, but it's still in the same place (read: memory location)? It is only a difference of degree don't you think but now the real world example is much more arguable. Okay, that is probably the point where I'd be inclined to break the analogy. But I disagree that modifying and completely rebuilding are just a difference of degree. Edit: And to be clear, I don't think your code sample (helpfully quoted below this post) qualifies as taking apart and rebuilding from the frame up.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2011 22:31 |
|
Brecht posted:
what the gently caress are you talking about e: oh I get it, you mean that the variable bar1 on line 3 is the same variable as the bar1 that is on line 1, it just has been assigned a different object. Do I understand? this is incorrect (in most* situations) in C++ however. *I only say most because I'm not certain that it's never, but I can't think of a situation where that's true TasteMyHouse fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Sep 26, 2011 |
# ? Sep 26, 2011 22:31 |
|
TasteMyHouse posted:what the gently caress are you talking about Toady posted:I think you're being a little too pedantic here. Brecht fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Sep 26, 2011 |
# ? Sep 26, 2011 22:49 |
|
nielsm posted:But apparently C# Struct var; is equivalent to something like: I'm not going to chime in with anything about C++, but for correctness' sake I'm going to bring this up about C#: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2010/09/30/the-truth-about-value-types.aspx (Don't think about value types in C# like that.)
|
# ? Sep 26, 2011 22:57 |
|
Brecht posted:Yes, my point is only that the identifier "bar1" (ie. the variable "bar1") is the same at line 1 and line 3, but that the object it refers to is a different object in every functional sense. I concede it has the same memory address (I could probably make that not true, but it would take some pretty gnarly abuse) but that's an implementation detail, and irrelevant to illustrating the distinction between variables and the things they refer to. You're saying this like this is a feature of C++, which it isn't; this is dependent on Bar's definition of operator= implementing the behavior you describe, which it is by no means required to. I think you're muddying the waters for the people itt who already don't have a strong understanding of how C++ works. e: I'm also frustrated by your specification of "in every functional sense", since an object can mutate itself to be "functionally different" through a hundred different ways other than just the assignment operator. TasteMyHouse fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Sep 26, 2011 |
# ? Sep 26, 2011 22:57 |
|
Smugdog Millionaire posted:I'm not going to chime in with anything about C++, but when it comes to C# the language designers really want you to not think about value types like that: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2010/09/30/the-truth-about-value-types.aspx Yeah, but the language designers also apparently want me to put function names capitalised, so, like, what the gently caress, man!!!
|
# ? Sep 26, 2011 22:58 |
|
Eggnogium posted:Edit: And to be clear, I don't think your code sample (helpfully quoted below this post) qualifies as taking apart and rebuilding from the frame up. That's not my code but I agree. The question then appears to be, how much of an object must change before it is no longer the same object (assuming it keeps its location in memory)? If I change every member variable in the below class, is it the same object? What about some proper subset of the member variables? code:
|
# ? Sep 26, 2011 23:00 |
|
This discussion reminds me of something Žižek once wrote, and I think that's a sure sign that the real horror is most definitely us, in this thread, right now.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2011 23:03 |
|
so hang on is java pass by reference or value
|
# ? Sep 26, 2011 23:43 |
|
tef posted:so hang on is java pass by reference or value it's both at the same time dude
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 00:00 |
|
In Java you pass everything, including references, by value. Objects are only created when you use the keyword "new". and mumble mumble autoboxing etc. Reference assignment uses "reference semantics", as opposed to "copy semantics".
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 00:08 |
|
Smugdog Millionaire posted:I'm not going to chime in with anything about C++, but for correctness' sake I'm going to bring this up about C#: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2010/09/30/the-truth-about-value-types.aspx Value types? Those are like the opposite of void and empty types right?
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 00:08 |
|
tef posted:so hang on is java pass by reference or value Is prolog pass by value or pass by reference
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 00:56 |
|
Vanadium posted:Is prolog pass by value or pass by reference The WAM implementation is pass by reference to reference.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 01:13 |
|
baquerd posted:In Java there are objects and there are primitives. I've been with Java since 1997 and the terminology did not start out as ambiguous though recent revisions have practically made everything a bit muddled. I don't see what's so hard to understand why you can have object types and non-object types, from booleans to doubles to... (ok it's not a long list) but anything out there that does not support methods or member variables can be thought of as a non-object, then there are objects, then there are structs which are a sort of specialized object in Java... Q. What is a Java developer?
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 03:19 |
|
Eggnogium posted:Here's a horror: Scrolling past your avatar in IE9 slows the browser down to a crawl. I thought I was insane. Thank you for confirming that I'm not. Scrolling past tef's avatar spikes my CPU like crazy and slows down IE9. Sometimes the browser even becomes non-responsive! It's the animated GIF; opening it in IE9 alone sends my CPU usage up to a constant 12% and memory usage keeps going up. Someone ought to send that to Microsoft and mention that so they can fix whatever the gently caress is happening. New Yorp New Yorp fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Sep 27, 2011 |
# ? Sep 27, 2011 05:14 |
|
Ithaqua posted:It's the animated GIF; opening it in IE9 alone sends my CPU usage up to a constant 12% and memory usage keeps going up. Someone ought to send that to Microsoft and mention that so they can fix whatever the gently caress is happening.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 05:28 |
|
baquerd posted:I bet it's redrawing the entire image every frame but the GIF animation definition allows for frame difference updates so the actual file size is small enough to be an avatar but there are a ton more frames than most GIFs. That still doesn't explain why it would murder performance in IE9 when it works just fine in every other browser on earth, though.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 05:49 |
|
I thought that had been fixed already. Maybe they introduced a regression?
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 06:05 |
|
nielsm posted:But apparently C# Struct var; is equivalent to something like: Presumably with adequate alignment. Also, goons, "object" is a language-defined term. A local variable in Java is not an object. Pretty much everything in C++ is an object (except functions, references, and unconstructed storage). The end.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 07:22 |
|
Ithaqua posted:I thought I was insane. Thank you for confirming that I'm not. Scrolling past tef's avatar spikes my CPU like crazy and slows down IE9. Sometimes the browser even becomes non-responsive! It's the animated GIF; opening it in IE9 alone sends my CPU usage up to a constant 12% and memory usage keeps going up. Someone ought to send that to Microsoft and mention that so they can fix whatever the gently caress is happening. It's already been reported (and I added a comment with tef's avatar as well): https://connect.microsoft.com/IE/feedback/details/606199/very-poor-gif-animation-performance Microsoft's response: quote:Thank you for reporting the IE9 performance issue when viewing a web page with many animated GIFs. While your bug report is a valid observation, we will not be addressing the issue in IE9. Animated GIF use overall is not particularly high and is declining. Moreover, sites with many animated GIFs are rare. At this stage in the IE9 cycle, we are focusing our engineering efforts on interoperability and performance issues common to a large number of sites.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 12:04 |
|
iirc it only affects 32 bit ie9 (or was it 64 bit). some people don't have a problem with ie9
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 12:49 |
|
Microsoft posted:Moreover, sites with many animated GIFs are rare. I guess Microsoft doesn't care about tumblr users.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 13:19 |
|
tef posted:iirc it only affects 32 bit ie9 (or was it 64 bit). some people don't have a problem with ie9
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 13:20 |
|
I think this speaks for itself:code:
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 13:22 |
|
beuges posted:It's a high enough priority to write and release, but not high enough to test or change. Sounds like Microsoft to me.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 13:52 |
|
It doesn't even work in Safari 5, it just draws a blue dot where the "turtle" would be.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 14:52 |
|
Aleksei Vasiliev posted:it affects both on my machine, though I think 64-bit handles it a tiny bit better Same here though it's not bringing down the whole machine. Glad I don't have to use IE for everything.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 15:42 |
|
Che Delilas posted:It's a high enough priority to write and release, but not high enough to test or change. Sounds like Microsoft to me. Clearly this would not be a problem if every avatar were a Silverlight plugin.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 16:21 |
|
TRex EaterofCars posted:It doesn't even work in Safari 5, it just draws a blue dot where the "turtle" would be. Wait, there's supposed to be a turtle in that gif?
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 16:29 |
|
angrytech posted:Wait, there's supposed to be a turtle in that gif? haha
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 16:32 |
|
angrytech posted:Wait, there's supposed to be a turtle in that gif? In case you're not joking...
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 16:53 |
|
TasteMyHouse posted:In case you're not joking... There isn't an obvious cursor/turtle in the avatar.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 17:04 |
|
MEAT TREAT posted:There isn't an obvious cursor/turtle in the avatar. are we seeing the same thing? I see a curve being drawn in a turtle-graphics fashion. IIRC it was made with Python's turtle module.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 17:08 |
|
beuges posted:It's already been reported (and I added a comment with tef's avatar as well): https://connect.microsoft.com/IE/feedback/details/606199/very-poor-gif-animation-performance Way to totally miss the point IE. Anyways I just confirmed it's still broken in the IE10 preview.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 17:12 |
|
Dicky B posted:This seems like a good time to recommend this book http://www.elementsofprogramming.com/book.html I defy anyone to say they got past chapter 1 of this book without a migraine. It makes perfect sense for me up to Transformations and their Orbits. Then I loving have no idea what the gently caress is going on.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 18:01 |
|
TasteMyHouse posted:are we seeing the same thing? I see a curve being drawn in a turtle-graphics fashion. IIRC it was made with Python's turtle module. So do I, but this was said: TRex EaterofCars posted:It doesn't even work in Safari 5, it just draws a blue dot where the "turtle" would be. And it's not unreasonable for someone to expect to see the cursor/"turtle" from days of yore.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 18:09 |
|
Fren posted:I defy anyone to say they got past chapter 1 of this book without a migraine. It makes perfect sense for me up to Transformations and their Orbits. Then I loving have no idea what the gently caress is going on.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 18:53 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 13:26 |
|
Dicky B posted:This seems like a good time to recommend this book http://www.elementsofprogramming.com/book.html It's another aspie written book by math phds in the typical overly symbolic aspie academic style. These concepts aren't hard, they're just written in a very unnecessary obtuse way.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2011 19:17 |