| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Comments:
<0> hahaha i think i got it, yes, i was looking at an unitialized hDC before it had anything ***igned to it, or not but anyway now it works
<0> :D
<1> -.-
<0> wha? i'm allowed to look stupid!
<2> you might not want to go for that image all the time
<2> we might start calling you JBlitzen
<3> yes but IQs in the minus range are not allowed
<0> bah, lack of knowledge has nothing to do with iq
<3> so you say
<2> heh
<0> making mistakes is a part of studying, tbh
<3> reading is part of studying too
<3> so go read
<2> rea... what?
<0> yes, and i am, but then again nm, i've already said that several times.
<3> wha you mean :)
<3> you get frustrated reading so instead you come here and anooy everyone else?
<0> bealtine, trust me it wasn't my intention to annoy you.
<3> you've been using the channel like a private tutor all day
<0> i've been asking questions, yes, i reckon that is allowed after all i have never demanded answers
<3> well reading is the answer
<0> and tbh if i have done something against the channel rules i'll take no offense if you ban me, after all, i annoy you.
<3> learn to read first
<3> you arent annoying me (per se) I just look on in bewildered bemusment
<4> my default policy!
<4> makes the world make so much more sense
<3> heh
<0> well amusing you is cool with me, after all i do not pretend to know much nor do i state an intention of coding anything uber, i am simply trying to learn, no more no less, and the fact that this channel has a lot of genious people who have helped me learn quicker and better is the reason i'm asking a lot of questions here
<3> so do books
<0> i am, i'm reading one book and i did not dismiss ac++, but i'm not ready for it's approach just yet
<0> but right now i am set on learning something which is outside of the scope of these books, which is why i'm even more confused but hey, slowly but surely i am getting there
<5> What is (2 ^ 0) supposed to equal?
<1> 2 xor 0
<6> Hey is there any advantage C has over C++ ?
<1> not anymore
<6> because c++ is capable of everything C can do plus also has a great deal of stuff that you'd have to either implement or obtain to do in C, right ?
<1> you dont need anything C for C++
<6> ok
<6> seems to me C++ saves a lot of time ... for isntance simple data structures like stacks and queues ... but doesn't C work faster than C++ generally speaking ?
<1> faster in what sense?
<6> execution time
<1> sure you can spend a week to re-implement a stack in C.....
<6> of compiled code
<6> well it doesn't take a week :) takes a few hours depending on the stack ... but you coudl also download a library too I guess
<1> using the same patterns and designs... there is no execution speed difference
<6> well for instance ... a stack implemented in C would not run faster than the stack objects in C++ ?
<1> not if ran in release mode and with the same feature set
<1> comparing C++ with C is like comparing apples and pears... since most of the programs made in C and C++ differ a lot from the design perspective
<7> in anyone in here trying to use asp.net "atlas"
<6> ok
<6> originally most books I read would always say C++ is a superset of C though ... has this changed or were all those books wrong
<1> a very very very big superset
<6> aha but a superset nonetheless
<1> comparible to..... hmm....
<1> taking a normal non-gear bike.... and changing it to a chopper :P
<6> haha ok
<1> c++ is so much more than simply a super-set
<6> well a superset doesn't say how much or how little
<8> Oh, God, he's asking the same stupid questions over at #C!
<6> just that all of C is included in C++
<6> thanks dwork :)
<7> BDPE not a _proper_ superset
<8> You've already been told they aren't the same!
<8> Get over it!
<6> :)
<7> there are things you can write in C that will NOT work in C++
<7> (not useful things, IMO, but legal things)
<8> But that's just the way you write them, you can do the same with both languages.
<8> In terms of general goals.
<7> dwork yes, and generally easier in C++ than C
<8> For my liking yes... C "fans" tend to think otherwise, though.
<8> I suppose it's just a matter of taste in the end
<7> no, it's NOT a matter of taste at all
<6> i think in say the ACM programming competetion (if you guys know of it) ... C++ coders have a huge advantage
<8> Ok, not taste, just mind open-ness
<7> it's a better language. period.
<6> yep I'm learning more C++ and I love it
<7> so, anyone playing with this "atlas" thingie of MS's ?
<8> Not me... what is it?
<7> BDPE what are you using to learn
<8> Oh, I see
<7> dwork some asp.net thing
<6> http://www.freeprogrammingresources.com/cppbooks.html at the moment ... do you have a book I can purchase yuo'd recommend?
<7> xml / http
<7> I recommend the books at http://rudbek.com/books.html
<7> none of them are free. and the only legal free book I've seen I wasn't all that fond of, but it's been updated a couple times since I've read it
<6> all are fine to start with, vawjrwrk? I know C pretty well but no C++.
<6> well just extremely basic C++ but I'm aware of a lot of the advantages like the common data structures (stacks, queues, etc.)
<7> those are in order for a reason
<6> and the cin and cout and ofstream and ifstream are just awesome
<6> oh ok :P
<7> an you will want to unlearn some stuff from C if you want the additional type-safety of C++
<6> well I'm good at unlearning
<6> comes naturally :P
<1> void * *couch*
<6> haha
<7> i.e. pretty much forget malloc() realloc(), calloc(), free()
<6> void pointers are lots of fun :)
<6> well I never did like them to begin with :P
<6> i also like the C++ string
<6> tanks, later
<9> That statement was like that dilbert cartoon where an accountant says "I like to type the number 6"
<10> never heard of it, what's a dilbert?
<9> It was in the book The DIlbert Principle which was a NYT best seller
<3> dilbert and the management trousers
<3> one of my favs
<10> never heard of it.
<3> weird
<3> stuff like this : http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20060329.html
<9> which is why you had so much trouble understanding management at AMD Noidea128 :D
<11> that's just stupid; why can't i register a well known singleton service and a client entry to that type in the same config file; say i'm hosting a singleton as a windows service, there's no easy way to obtain the first instance to the singleton that the clients will also receive (.net remoting)
<11> pfft says i
<11> i see no technical reason why there is such a limitation; if i create a new instance, it should look in the configuration to activate the object remotely; wtf cares if it's the same appdomain or not, just give me back a proxy
<7> peterhu you know anything about asp.net "atlas" ?
<11> not much beyond what i've read onlin
<11> online
<7> k, thanks
<11> haven't tried it yet
<11> thought i'd get my asp.net 2.0 site running first before i figure out how AJAX fits into it
<7> our guy is having problems, among other things, compiling the examples
<11> argh, the problem would be solved if i could determine the activation url in the configuration (manually telling .NET to instantiate the object via remoting works fine, even if the same appdomain hosts the object - but you can't do it from configuration alone)
<11> bone headedly stupid this is
<7> sounds like it
<12> @seek Reversing: Secrets of Reverse Engineering
<12>
<12> Reversing: Secrets of Reverse Engineering
<11> ?
<2> boooo
<12> @seek Reversing Secrets of Reverse Engineering
<2> samjo: secret = get a dis***embler
<2> we're not a damn warez channel, moron
<9> peterhu why don't you run your client in another app domain?
<10> damned
<10> damn is a verb
<10> damned is the adjective
<2> ^damned
<11> because the remoted singleton is the service (runs as a windows service). my windows service executable needs to create the first instance; several other applications will communicate with the same instance
<11> the later works fine, as the client applications have client configuration entries
<11> the problem comes from obtaining the first instance
<11> as the windows service's configuration file contains the service entry, it can't also contain a client entry for the same type (why? i'm not sure)
<11> i can manually activate an instance, but for that i need to know the activation URL (port number, tcp vs. http, etc)
<11> and there's no easy way to determine that from the remoting configuration object model (surprisingly enough)
<9> I am just thinking why they'll do that
<7> because they weren't thinking when they did it
<9> Probably but there could be another reason...
<11> the fact that it works manually has me puzzled as why it can't work automatically through configuration
<7> poor or no "design time" put into the project
<9> Try changing the order of reg. info in the config file
<9> For client and service
<11> unfortunately, no effect
<11> it processes the client registrations first
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#javascript
crappy bot
#linux
let me hear your body rock
#linux
#MissKitten
#chatzone
12What European city boasts the Luxembourg Garden ?
synaptic log file
#linux
|
|