Garbage Collection (article + discussion)
No, definitely no.
Did you look into RSS feeds? It is really quite simple:
Then just simply keep adding the <item></item> fields above the previous <item></item> tags. Then just upload it to your site and give the link to the XML file. Here is one I did where I used the code above and then added your GC article, then loaded it to a RSS reader.
A screen shot of one of my RSS Readers displaying the info: http://prntscr.com/2w7t53
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| @BHX: it would be painful to manually adjust an RSS file every time I want to write something. |
Did you look into RSS feeds? It is really quite simple:
|
|
Then just simply keep adding the <item></item> fields above the previous <item></item> tags. Then just upload it to your site and give the link to the XML file. Here is one I did where I used the code above and then added your GC article, then loaded it to a RSS reader.
|
|
A screen shot of one of my RSS Readers displaying the info: http://prntscr.com/2w7t53
Last edited on
@LB, you got reddit'd: http://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1z3w3k/garbage_collection_is_wrong/
@BHX: I strongly dislike XML, it's a pain to write ;) it's why I put off learning HTML for so long. The ludicrous redundancy drives me insane.
@Cubbi: Wow, can't wait to see how misinformed I am. EDIT: That wasn't so bad, mainly just me not properly conveying what I meant to actually say (or the occasional misread).
@Cubbi: Wow, can't wait to see how misinformed I am. EDIT: That wasn't so bad, mainly just me not properly conveying what I meant to actually say (or the occasional misread).
Last edited on
You actually got G+'d also https://plus.google.com/107319216683799590102/posts/WctyG7cjwi2
Sometimes I forget that this website is seen by so many people every day, I always like to think of it as an encapsulated community with people asking for help through the glass. I have a very wrong view of the world.
Hi L B,
I don't know whether you have done any writing courses at your university yet, but maybe I can offer some advice that might mean your future writing is viewed more favourably. People will be more impressed if you use a structured and technically good writing style. It is still possible to do this as well as having a friendly and natural conversation style. I don't mean this reply to be a lecture - I just hope there is something to learn from it, and it helps you out some, as I am sure you will be doing plenty of writing as part of your studies.
The first point is research, it looks as though you wrote the article in about 30 minutes using your existing knowledge. As extensive as this might be, you have been countered by many people with much more knowledge. You said in this forum that you were asking for comment and have now edited the web page to that effect, but perhaps it would have been better if you had included that in the introduction, or structured the whole article that way. You did have a statement to that effect in your conclusion, but as you can see from the reddit & Google+ pages, no one seems to remember that. Look at each statement you make, and ask yourself if it can be backed up with evidence. Show that you have done research by presenting the evidence. Put references in the body of the text, along with a detailed reference list at the end of your article.
Be careful with the actual wording, direct statements like the title "Garbage Collection is wrong" should be ameliorated or avoided altogether. Maybe the whole article could be restructured along the lines of "Comparison between RAII and Garbage Collection". Another example is this part :
I know you said "modern C++", and "Nobody writes code like that anymore in C++", but perhaps you could have said something about how smart pointers are much more widely used in recent years, especially since their standardisation in C++11. I remember reading what Herb Sutter wrote: "In C++03 we taught people to use new & delete, now in C++11 we teach them to use smart pointers and to not ever use new & delete". See how that is much less confrontational than saying straight out that something is wrong? People with long years of experience in any field will often react negatively to statements like: "this new thing is the only right way, and everything else is wrong", especially in Computer Science where things often need to be put in context of it's history. Perhaps your article was meant to be in the context of any new code that is written in C++?
The last but more important point is structure - the writing courses I did taught us to have an introduction, main body, and conclusion. The introduction explains the purpose of the article and lists the points that will be discussed. The main body discusses the pros and cons of each point. The conclusion provides a summary of what was found.
Any way, good luck man - and we look forward to any new articles you write, or even revamped versions of the existing ones.
Regards
I don't know whether you have done any writing courses at your university yet, but maybe I can offer some advice that might mean your future writing is viewed more favourably. People will be more impressed if you use a structured and technically good writing style. It is still possible to do this as well as having a friendly and natural conversation style. I don't mean this reply to be a lecture - I just hope there is something to learn from it, and it helps you out some, as I am sure you will be doing plenty of writing as part of your studies.
The first point is research, it looks as though you wrote the article in about 30 minutes using your existing knowledge. As extensive as this might be, you have been countered by many people with much more knowledge. You said in this forum that you were asking for comment and have now edited the web page to that effect, but perhaps it would have been better if you had included that in the introduction, or structured the whole article that way. You did have a statement to that effect in your conclusion, but as you can see from the reddit & Google+ pages, no one seems to remember that. Look at each statement you make, and ask yourself if it can be backed up with evidence. Show that you have done research by presenting the evidence. Put references in the body of the text, along with a detailed reference list at the end of your article.
Be careful with the actual wording, direct statements like the title "Garbage Collection is wrong" should be ameliorated or avoided altogether. Maybe the whole article could be restructured along the lines of "Comparison between RAII and Garbage Collection". Another example is this part :
| Know what else is funny? In modern C++, using new or delete in your code is wrong. It's not done. Nobody writes code like that anymore in C++. That also means nobody ever forgets to release a resource in C++. Why not? Because of RAII. |
I know you said "modern C++", and "Nobody writes code like that anymore in C++", but perhaps you could have said something about how smart pointers are much more widely used in recent years, especially since their standardisation in C++11. I remember reading what Herb Sutter wrote: "In C++03 we taught people to use new & delete, now in C++11 we teach them to use smart pointers and to not ever use new & delete". See how that is much less confrontational than saying straight out that something is wrong? People with long years of experience in any field will often react negatively to statements like: "this new thing is the only right way, and everything else is wrong", especially in Computer Science where things often need to be put in context of it's history. Perhaps your article was meant to be in the context of any new code that is written in C++?
The last but more important point is structure - the writing courses I did taught us to have an introduction, main body, and conclusion. The introduction explains the purpose of the article and lists the points that will be discussed. The main body discusses the pros and cons of each point. The conclusion provides a summary of what was found.
Any way, good luck man - and we look forward to any new articles you write, or even revamped versions of the existing ones.
Regards
| Bjarne Stroustrup wrote: |
|---|
| Yes. Thanks. He is reflecting ideas from my recent (last couple of years) talks and writings. I consider GC a last and incomplete resort. |
Well despite the criticism of other programmers, it appears the C++ language creator is happy with your article.
Well he does condemn some C++ sites and articles. Well pro cpp sites that falsely represent data or that he deems bad sites due to poor habits being taught.
Last edited on
I'm a fan of strongly-typed languages with RAII and const-correctness, C++ just happens to be the most popular one. So, I may appear very pro-C++, but really C++ is just the only example I can use.
closed account (N36fSL3A)
BHXSpecter, can you post a screenshot to prove that your email response wasn't faked?
Not that I don't believe you, but someone may use this information in the future and they might want proof of some sort that this isn't a fake.
Not that I don't believe you, but someone may use this information in the future and they might want proof of some sort that this isn't a fake.
The only reason to ask for proof is because you don't believe them. You have to take a few things into account to know it isn't faked.
Me and LB have had multiple disagreements on here so fact one is I wouldn't go through the trouble of faking a message to make him look good.
Bjarne is open about what his email is for people and students to contact him fact two, easier to get a quote from him than make up one.
Looking at the first page of this thread, you see I said "Garbage Collection has its uses, but I wouldn't say it is the best thing." which would make it obvious, if I had faked it I wouldn't have made it anti-GC.
Usually when people fake things, they want to fake it so it proves their point and that quote goes completely against what I said in the first part of the thread.
Me and LB have had multiple disagreements on here so fact one is I wouldn't go through the trouble of faking a message to make him look good.
Bjarne is open about what his email is for people and students to contact him fact two, easier to get a quote from him than make up one.
Looking at the first page of this thread, you see I said "Garbage Collection has its uses, but I wouldn't say it is the best thing." which would make it obvious, if I had faked it I wouldn't have made it anti-GC.
Usually when people fake things, they want to fake it so it proves their point and that quote goes completely against what I said in the first part of the thread.
The article's implicit title is "Garbage Collection is Wrong for most things". GC is useful, but only in very specific scenarios. It is being overused to a horrifying extent. RAII is useful almost everywhere, however, and is being underused.
Last edited on
closed account (N36fSL3A)
| The only reason to ask for proof is because you don't believe them. You have to take a few things into account to know it isn't faked. |
I asked for proof in case someone needs to use that information in some sort of debate. Facts aren't valid with evidence to back it up.
Last edited on
| Fredbill wrote: |
|---|
| I asked for proof in case someone needs to use that information in some sort of debate. Fact's aren't valid with evidence to back it up. |
If someone's debate relies on a single quote I posted then their debate is already lost and unfounded.
| Bjarne Stroustrup wrote: |
|---|
| He is reflecting ideas from my recent (last couple of years) talks and writings. I consider GC a last and incomplete resort. |
If a debate needs to be made on something Bjarne has said or written, chances are you can already find all the information and proof for the debate subject at Bjarne's personal website.
closed account (N36fSL3A)
| BHXSpecter wrote: |
|---|
| If someone's debate relies on a single quote I posted then their debate is already lost and unfounded. |
| If a debate needs to be made on something Bjarne has said or written, chances are you can already find all the information and proof for the debate subject at Bjarne's personal website. |
I don't see what's preventing you from just taking a screenshot of the email and posting a link here. It won't hurt you and will literally take a minute max.
I'm with BHX here, posting a screenshot of the email will do no good. Not only that, images and emails are easily faked. Talks and video lectures are not easily faked.