I know that spam has historically been a problem here, and will increase if we re-allow registration, but not letting any new users register seems like a bad solution. This site has been a pretty good alternative to more pompous sites like Stack Overflow, but unfortunately is fairly dead these days.
I suspect the admin does know about the broken new account creation and likely doesn't care.
Even if he doesn't know he's been an absentee admin for quite some time for the most part. No updates since the new look was enacted. The tutorial and reference sections have been fallow for years now. C++17 wasn't yet official the last time changes happened, and even C++14 is just a bare smattering.
The 'net hosting bills are still getting paid, or are sufficiently in advance on account. Eventually cplusplus is gonna disappear from the interwebs one day from serious lack of activity. A handful of people asking questions, and another handful of people answering.
The lack of activity is not helping the few spammers still 'active.' No one is around to bother with their click-bait.
Changing the date to the current year shouldn't be all that arduous. The fact that it isn't shows how detached from the website the admin is. For whatever reason.
Changing the date to the current year shouldn't be all that arduous. The fact that it isn't shows how detached from the website the admin is. For whatever reason.
While I use the legacy version exclusively, so that is why I saw the copyright as not updated to 2024.
I personally find the non-legacy current version of cplusplus to be a bit harder to read than the legacy version despite the larger font used. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@zapshe,
The way you've said "var i" in multiple "if" statements in the same function is technically incorrect. "var" is function-scoped (strangely), so once you've said "var i" anywhere in a function, no matter how deeply nested, "i" is declared for the whole function. The 2015 keyword "let" is properly block-scoped and should be used instead in modern code.
The way you've said "var i" in multiple "if" statements in the same function is technically incorrect
Thanks for pointing it out, this is why I avoid Javascript.. I know let is usually preferred, but in this case "i" is always set before use so it's not a problem.
I remember hearing about this issue with using "var" a long time ago, but I don't respect Javascript enough to commit it to memory.
function f()
x = 42
end
function g()
print(x)
end
f()
g() -- prints "42"
If you want locals you have to ask for it explicitly: local x = 42. Almost the worst possible way to do it. It could only be worse if it created a file that's persistent between runs.
Parenthesis everywhere and forced prefixes. Look at the prefix within prefix. Hard to read, hard to remember, something about "progn" that is all over my code that I wrote and don't remember what the hell it's for.
Lisp was easily one of the worst languages, the code is very unnatural. Having parenthesis everywhere is just a terrible decision.
I mean just consider the C++ equivalent:
if (abs(curRPM) < 50 and braking == -10)
vs
(if (and (< (abs curRPM) 50) (eq braking (- 10)))
You can read it normally from left to right just like you would a math equation, no coding experience even required to be able to get the jist of it.
I was being sarcastic! We learnt Lisp at university many, many moons ago - and I haven't used it since. In the exam we had to write a Lisp program to play a game of dominoes. I've forgotten it all now.....