| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Comments:
<0> since we OOP'd the **** out of it we ended up with something like five thousand lines of code
<0> I mean, we took it way too far, and made cl***es for stuff that didn't need it just because we could, and the prof loved it
<1> see, design paradigms *should* exist so that people can apply them when they're appropriate.
<0> hell we had a cl*** just for error values, instead of a header file
<0> well... on a real project we would have done just that
<1> OO is inappropriate in 95% of the places where it is applied.
<0> also, the same idiot who fouled our codebase repeatedly used an editor that automatically converted all tabs to spaces when saving. even though our codestyle explicitly stated not to do that because it's better to let everyone's editor handle the tabs as they desire.
<2> hah
<1> how terrible. someone disobeyed your coding style convention.
<0> well, we threatened to hit people with nerf bats for doing that before the start of it
<1> (why do people care so much about those, anyway? i don't even understand why they exist.)
<0> this is one gem I really thought was amazing:
<0> delete pieces[file][rank];
<0> pieces[file][rank]->(promotoType)(promote_piece);
<0> delete it, then use it!
<1> nothing wrong with that.
<1> (something there is a method, right?)
<3> nah it looks like a cast of promote_piece to (promotoType)
<3> oh, i guess it is calling a function
<0> except that promotoType is a typo
<3> i mean method (i dont use OO)
<0> I only use it when there is good reason to or I am required to
<1> niv_: "method" is OO baby-talk for "member function". for some reason, i've started to use it.
<3> evilgeek: yah
<0> mostly if I need OO stuff I can fake it with a pile of function pointers in C
<4> OO is overrated.
<3> comphobby: well, that might still be OO, just not using C++'s cl*** implementation of it
<0> which is what I suspect the C++ compiler and/or libs do internally anyways
<3> comphobby: we have OO code in our sourcetrees that uses structs+function pointers, but it's still disgusting
<0> heh
<3> however, technically fopen() is OO
<3> operating on FILE objects
<3> it just depends how far you take that stuff until it gets disgusting
<1> CompHobby: but that's inefficient. your C++ compiler can do a better job.
<0> evilgeek: most of what I write doesn't need to be very efficient, when I need it to be so I use ***embly
<1> most of what i write doesn't need to be very efficient. when it has to be, i look for an efficient algorithm.
<4> dcalc 128 * 3
<5> answer: 384
<6> what is an underquoted definition?
<4> OO taken to an extreme can get really complicated and hairy really fast.
<4> And then you end up with a heap of code that's really hard to extend and maintain.
<7> The wrath of overengineering.
<4> The company I work for excels at overengineering.
<8> man, there is a podcast "python411", and man does it ****
<8> i don't know how you could have a whole podcast dedicated to a programming language
<1> what the **** is a "podcast"?
<0> evilgeek, basically it's some sort of audio program or song mix or whatever saved as a downloadable format and posted on a site periodically
<0> supposedly it's going to "revolutionize" things but I don't see it being very much to write home about
<1> so why is it called a "podcast" rather than a "link to an mp3"?
<0> that's a damn good question
<0> oh wait, it's because you're supposed to put it on your ipod to listen to on the way to work or whatever
<0> which doesn't really change it from an mp3 very much.
<8> evilgeek: because apple popularized the method of getting them to users via itunes... basically XML is used in an RSS-like manner to send out media files
<8> used for iPods
<8> CompHobby: it's completely different because of the RSS-like aspect
<0> ah
<0> I wasn't aware of that, because the ones people have told me about were all just posted on places like cnn.com and in one case a website with around ten visitors
<1> i still don't see how this differs from a link to an mp3. oh well.
<8> yeah.. well a lot of places just post as well, for those who don't have itunes or another podcast downloading software
<1> i really wish wannabe geeks would just stop making up bull**** words.
<8> evilgeek: because using this format, you can subscribe to podcasts and have all sorts of subscriptions kept up-to-date
<9> 4 real
<1> this feature is available in the "link to an mp3" format as well.
<8> not in any automated format i know of
<1> i believe that netscape 2.0 introduced a "subscribe" feature that would periodically check various websites for updates.
<9> it did!
<8> yeah, and did it have a standardized way of tabulating information about subscriptions?
<10> "yay" for netscape
<8> evilgeek: if you want to bitch about it, at least learn about it first
<1> what information?
<1> no. i have a policy that people must convince me of the use of a buzzword before i stop bitching about it.
<8> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Apodcast&btnG=Google+Search
<8> convince you? the world doesn't care about you
<8> it's obviously called podcasting for a reason
<1> just like "Web 2.0" is called "Web 2.0" for a reason.
<1> it's not just a random buzzword. not at all.
<8> i can't think of anything like itunes and subscribing to media in this way before apple's itunes
<1> i think that "reason" so so that people can **** money out of venture capitalists.
<8> evilgeek: well go be a luddite then
<9> this podcasting is it AJAX enabled?
<8> no, it uses RSS or Atom syndication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast
<11> what is the most popular software consumer would want to use?
<10> something that searches the internet for porn, then downloads it.
<10> Oh yeah, and it should also trawl by catagory, that'd be important
<11> ..
<10> ahahaha, that was kinda mean of me
<0> it was true though
<10> yeah
<10> sometimes the truth hurts
<0> actually I don't see how it was mean
<12> Smallest music format ever, that you know of?
<10> well, while I answered within the technical limit of his question, I sure didn't follow the spirit of it
<0> probably .mp3 or ogg vorbis
<0> ogg vorbis is better
<0> if you want fully lossless encoding/decoding, use FLAC or OggFLAC, or WavPack
<13> ayeyen: SID.
<12> I don't care about quality atm.
<0> oh, if we're allowed standards like that... MIDI is fairly compact.
<12> well
<12> somehting I can KIND of push voice through
<12> midi = not so good for voices :P
<0> hm... Ogg Speex probably
<0> it's designed to compress voice well
<13> ayeyen: http://www.hvsc.c64.org/
<1> ogg vorbis is not "better".
<1> it tends to have less perceptible error at lower bit rates. MP3 has less error at higher bit rates.
<13> evilgeek: My experience is that .OGG files sound better in general on monitors, while MP3 generally sounds better on everything else.
<0> hund: .ogg isn't a format, it's a container
<1> studies have been published on this subject. no, i don't know why.
<12> hund: you and your tempest
<1> CompHobby: yes, everyone knows that.
<0> it can contain vorbis, speex, theora, flac, and/or a few other formats that I forget
<12> ok, but the smallest?
<12> I have like 2MB to store this file in. :P
<12> and I can't find players easily
<12> So it would basically have to be something raw that dsp supports
<13> CompHobby: I know that. Files ending in .ogg still usually contain vorbis encoded audio.
<0> true
<0> since almost no one has heard of speex and theora, and flac is relatively new
<13> My FLAC files end in .flac.
<12> wow. my ogg just got bigger than my mp3 :(
<13> MP3 is mpeg too, yet people name the files .mp3 for convenience.
<12> seriously?
<7> Yes.
<12> wow, you're right
<12> It's just mpeg-3 with no video! :O lol
<10> MPEG layer 3 baby
<12> yeah
<13> ayeyen: I'm talking about (sound) studio monitors, not display devices.
<12> hund: hrm?
<0> you know what's cool? Tempest for Eliza
<13> ayeyen: <+ayeyen> hund: you and your tempest
<12> hund: ohhhh okay
<7> CompHobby: hehe
<7> nod
<0> it uses your video card to transmit radio.
<12> I thought you meant that crazy tempest thing I'm about to try
<0> well, monitor and video card
<13> Humanoid: MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 to be exact.
<12> I was close
<10> hund: my bad :D
<12> What are audio layers one and two for?
<0> one of them is reserved and the other is marked as deprecated.
<0> (I dunno, j/k)
<13> ayeyen: http://www.tnt.uni-hannover.de/project/mpeg/audio/faq/
<12> lol
<12> :)
<12> Still looking for a small audio format
<12> OR, a good one that I can stream
<12> And by stream, I mean stream directly into /dev/dsp
<12> And still sound good
Return to
#c
or
Go to some related
logs:
#heroin
#stocks
#politics
#politics
#mirc
#gentoo
#sex
#politics
spourt sex
#linux-noob
|
|