Programmers, is this accurate
-
You should also really be using the latest chainsaw model with new safety features, but your workplace swears by the gas guzzling piece of shit from 1996
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The new safety features all break down under stress and make the tool as safe as the 1996 piece as soon as you put them in a dangerous environment.
Also, both the new and the 1996 pieces have hidden explosives that were placed there by the new tooling used to build them. Nobody will tell you where they are, you should know that already. Don't hit them.
-
Stallman didn't draw it but I would argue in the absence of any other mascot the fact that some people have eaten the onion and believe it sort of does make it the de facto C++ mascot...
Language prescriptivists in shambles
-
You should also really be using the latest chainsaw model with new safety features, but your workplace swears by the gas guzzling piece of shit from 1996
I loved when my IDE would warn me that my code wasn't deterministic unless I used c++11 or newer compilers because previous versions technically didn't define how it should work, so every compiler handled it differently.
And all the times I had to specify C++11 because it had features I needed, and suddenly it was a huge headache because the testing pipeline wasn't REALLY compatible, it just said it was, and then handed it off to manual review.
Something I didn't know until 6 months after I started using it... -
Apache Pig from the image filename.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I would assume so since c++ was made as a joke.
-
The new safety features all break down under stress and make the tool as safe as the 1996 piece as soon as you put them in a dangerous environment.
Also, both the new and the 1996 pieces have hidden explosives that were placed there by the new tooling used to build them. Nobody will tell you where they are, you should know that already. Don't hit them.
Do they? As long as you use RAII and modern shit and keep to something like GCC, it should be safe, right?
I don't do C++ these days
-
This post did not contain any content.
I pronounce it "Cee Tee Tee"
-
The new safety features all break down under stress and make the tool as safe as the 1996 piece as soon as you put them in a dangerous environment.
Also, both the new and the 1996 pieces have hidden explosives that were placed there by the new tooling used to build them. Nobody will tell you where they are, you should know that already. Don't hit them.
Like a real powertool, if you unscrew the safety features because you feel they're getting in your way, they no longer provide safety. Having the guard from a chainsaw in your back pocket does nothing to protect you from the chainsaw you're holding.
-
Do they? As long as you use RAII and modern shit and keep to something like GCC, it should be safe, right?
I don't do C++ these days
it should be safe, right?
Are you phishing for an Anakin / Padme meme?
-
This is how Keith looks in the hands of Python "programmers". While being cared by normal specialists, Keith looks gorgeous and healthy. And can do super cool tricks too.
Yes, but takes it a lot more time, while newer and better system languages exist. D even has the advantage of building upon C instead of OCaml (like Rust and a lot of its competitors did), but if you want to opt-out from the garbage collection, you'll also have to opt-out from most mainstream D libraries.
