Maxim Fridental, sein Blog - Latest Comments

Re: Tenderness

Maxim Fridental — Tue, 08 May 2012 16:36:26 -0000

http://www.douban.com/note/183...
http://lib.ru/INPROZ/BARBUS/ne...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Re: Vergebung

Frank — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:04:43 -0000

Ja - nach all dieser Ungerechtigkeit die Jesus in seinen letzten Tagen ertragen musste das alles vergeben zu können ist einfach unvorstellbar. Selbst ist es wirklich schwer da auch nur im Entferntesten ran zu kommen. Aber auch wenn wir es nicht schaffen/nicht perfekt sind - er vergibt auch uns.

Re: The Internet Killer

Maxim Fridental — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:09:11 -0000

Yes. But do they failed because of being way ahead of time, because of poor execution - or because of a fundamental flaw in the business model?

Re: The Internet Killer

Frank Zehelein — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 03:34:35 -0000

It reminds me of one thing: AOL - they had much of the above - and failed :-)

Re: Adventures in embedded C land

fridental — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:43:14 -0000

Thanks!

Heh, this formula "C and C++" or its more often used variant "C/C++"... I consider it a smart marketing gag of C++ advocates. The user experience of C++ coding is so much different from the one of C coding as Objective C's one... And speaking about the progress, I don't believe any amount of progress can help C++. In my opinion, its syntax is DOA. Whenever I have choice, I would choose C over C++ (as well as Ruby over Python and C# over Java).

I don't really feel myself an expert in C. Theoretically, there are the new standards C99 and C11, but both are extremely cosmetic to my eyes. The former introduces a boolean type (but ifs and whiles are still happily accepting any other types) and guaranteed-bit-size numbers; the latter isn't even that much useful at all. No matter what, when working with a lot of open-source code, I can't see that either C99 or C11 have a distinct popularity among developers, so that their existence could be safely ignored for legacy and open-source projects.

I do really pretty much like glib, gobject, as well as their containers and data structure types. This is the only structured approach to design a modern software development foundation and naming conventions for C that I know. But I think one can really appreciate glib, only if one has already tried (and failed) to develop on a pure C or using some random libraries, because from the C# developer point of view, the glib usability and feature set is still inferior to .NET.

Re: Adventures in embedded C land

Sander Saares — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:55:44 -0000

Good reading! I'm orienting towards cross- and/or multiplatform software and also getting back to the C and C++ world these days. Lots of bad childhood memories coming back to me ;)

What you write about here seems to be the same as I remember about C from 5-10 years back. Is there such a thing as "modern C" or is all the progress happening in C++, leaving the C world is still stuck in time as a legacy platform?