|
Oh, I see - sorry 
But to be fair to the author, there's a slightly more meaningful example at the bottom.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Hahahaha...
I made a second read (including comments) and realized that there is no new operators here, but some kind of joke...
The author uses the a combination of bitwise NOT(~) and simple -! The only problem that it work only for signed integers...
But for those it works even with compilers from 1993...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: there is no new operators here, but some kind of joke
Kent? Keeeeeeeeent? 
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
OK, probably a joke, but it's staying in. It's an excellent example of just how magical and symbol heavy C++ syntax is.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I didn't want you to take it down, just blame you for irritating us  
BTW, works in C# too.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
 then my goal of being the grit to create pearls (of wisdom, maybe) is complete 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Actually every C/C++ compiler can do it!
(The article is a joke! It uses bitwise NOT (~) and minus (-) combined in a clever way, but it only works for signed integers...)
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: Actually every C/C++ compiler can do it!
(The article is a joke! It uses bitwise NOT (~) and minus (-) combined in a clever way, but it only works for signed integers...)
Yep, even Raymond made it clear in today's post[^]. Still impressive how easy it is for people to believe something is real just because it comes from a "reliable source". But I hope you don't buy everything that's written in the news... do you?
|
|
|
|
|
I give it 10 out of 10 points as a prank, considering that it fooled everybody, including the parent poster and myself
|
|
|
|
|
n -= 1;
What parentheses?
|
|
|
|
|
Nice joke.
#SupportHeForShe If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
Only 2 things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
There have undoubtedly been a huge number of technological advances over the last decade that have had a profound impact on the lives of many, not least our organizations. In the name of the Compiler, the Stack, and the Bug-Free Code. Amen.
|
|
|
|
|
Quite so. Too much faith in technology, and not enough faith in our own ability to solve our problems.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
But isn't technology the result of people trying to solve problems?
.
|
|
|
|
|
0bx wrote: But isn't technology the result of people trying to solve problems?
Yes, except that in many cases, we create technology to replace common sense. And of course, when you solve one problem you inevitably create several new problems.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: And of course, when you solve one problem you inevitably create several new problems.
Which seems to be the immanent problem of all technology; it comes without side-effects.
There's nothing wrong in having faith in technology, but we should be careful not to put our faith in the wrong concepts, most of the time simply because of economic reasons. Prominent example: Fracking.
|
|
|
|
|
That's why when solving we apply occam's razor to see if the solution doesn't create more problems than it solves. If we fail to do so, it's human failure, not a technological failure.
Technology works, even if it doesn't work. That's something you can have faith in.
Human's ability and intentions on the other hand...
.
|
|
|
|
|
Those who believe in technology faithlessly will not survive re-formatting.
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course we have way too much faith in technology...That's why the believers try to fit every new (or re-made) buzzword to every problem...But it also clear that technology didn't solved every real problem (but created some) - otherwise we already had stopped to search for the solution!
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
At times, yes. We believe our modern vehicle engines with embedded technology or air bags are safe. Sometimes, they fail... with disasterous results. Generally, safe, but not always.
We trust technology based on statistical probability and take our chances.
But, what if we don't? Should we go back to riding horses? Can't use a buggy or saddle, those were 'techological advances' at some point in time.
Or, hunt with rocks found on the ground instead of sharpened rocks, arrows, rifles, etc? Anything beyond what is found with modifying it becomes a technological advance.
We, as humans, are supposed to be able to use reason. Only we can decide what we are willing to live with.
|
|
|
|
|
As Google faces an antitrust probe from European regulators, some analysts are questioning whether the California tech giant's dominance has already peaked. Good. Then we can get back to mistrusting Microsoft, IBM, and AltaVista
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: AltaVista
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft looks to be readying two more new productivity apps: A cloud clipboard called OneClip, and a Windows Phone version of its Revolve calendar-contact manager mash-up. For all those times you've wanted to copy text from one machine and paste in another
|
|
|
|
|
Intel is a great example of a key technology partner who is investing and collaborating with Microsoft to advance the web. Does this mean we're going to have "Intel Inside" stickers on our browsers?
|
|
|
|
|
Over its 40 years of doing business, some of the best views of Microsoft came from its workers’ ground-level perspective of the company’s ups and downs. "Nothing's gonna touch you in these golden years"
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
