It seems that people are so intimidated by the infamous complexity of C++ that they don't even want to bother getting more familiar with it.
So, although technically the existence of C doesn't make sense, as it is superseded by C++ (except couple of things), C is winning in the branding department.
The title needs rephrasing, but I wouldn't expect someone to say that we're almost there with AI, as it would sound ridiculous, so I used my natural intelligence to correct the meaning of the title and understood it as the author had intended.
I wish they shipped their superb kernel as a separate product allowing third-party shells, as their UI design division has gone off the rails.
Actually, I think there should be a law for making OS kernels replaceable and separate from UI shells. I have to use Windows as certain software and drivers are not available/performant enough under Linux, so I have to deal with the crazy Windows 8.1 UX.
Pointers can be easily mapped from and into integer indices or file offsets in-place, so there is no big difference really.
I think it is generally not a good idea when in-memory representation of objects is identical to the serialized representation. This approach tends to backfire in a number of ways, such as format incompatibility between software versions, or hardware architecture differences, so it is always better to assume that your serialized representation will be different from in-memory representation.
You're exactly right. I'd go even further and say that the piece is quite superficial and the tone of it reminds of some holy book filled with commonplace morals.
People would use it all the time, and then complain that the app doesn't work.
The actual problem is the "all or nothing" security model that needs to be replaced with contextual permissions (like "This app wants to access your photos right now. Allow?", see iOS).
The "all or nothing" model defeats its own purpose by effectively leaving no choice for the user.
My takeaway from being both an interviewee and an interviewer is that the most correct attitude after a failed job interview is "We don't match each other".
The interviewer is testing their own ability to properly conduct a job interview as much as they're testing the candidate. I realized it when I was interviewing candidates myself.
Also, people and companies are drastically, surprisingly and ridiculously different. You may fail badly at one interview, and it means nothing, you can just move on to the next company and prosper.
This is such a retarded opinion. A person expressing it probably doesn't know shit about C++ or just plainly an idiot.