[OT] Was: totally satisfied :D

[Paulo Pinto]

On Monday, 24 September 2012 at 05:45:11 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 03:48:49AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:37:46 -0700
>> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
>> > 
>> > The sad part is that so many of the commenters have no idea 
>> > that
>> > adjacent C literals are concatenated at compile-time. It's a 
>> > very
>> > nice way to put long strings in code and have it nicely 
>> > indented,
>> > something that is sorely lacking in most languages. But 
>> > regardless,
>> > why are they posting if they clearly don't know C that well?!
>> > 
>> 
>> Heh, actually I didn't even know about it until I learned it 
>> from D
>> and then learned that D got it from C (does D still do it, or 
>> is that
>> one of those "to be deprecated" things?)
>
> Heh. I suppose in any language complex enough to be interesting 
> there
> are always some things that you don't know about until a long 
> time
> later. :) So maybe I was a bit harsh on the commenters. But 
> still, they
> should've checked before they posted (but then I'm guilty of 
> that one
> too).
>
>
>> But then dealing with strings is something I generally tried 
>> to avoid
>> in C anyway ;)
>
> Yeah... D is just so much more comfortable to write when 
> dealing with
> strings. With std.regex in Phobos now, writing 
> string-processing code in
> D is almost as comfortable as Perl, and probably performs 
> better too.

Having learned Turbo Pascal before I delved into C, the language
always felt pre-historic to me. Strings were a joke compared with
what Turbo Pascal offered, lack of modules and so forth.

After high-school, I only touched C in the university assignments
that made use of it, or in legacy code at my first job.

I would rather use C++ instead, which gave me back a bit of what
I've lost in the Turbo Pascal -> C transition, plus much more.


>> [...]
>> 
>> Yea, contract has it's upsides, although naturally it has it's 
>> own
>> perils too. Making a living at it is *damn* hard (either that 
>> or I'm
>> just REALLY bad at self-employment...but it's probably both), 
>> and
>> frankly I'm still trying to figure out how to do it.
> [...]
>
> True. I suppose you just have to do what's most popular out 
> there right
> now. I know someone who does Java stuff, and he's never short on
> contracts. In fact, he gets to choose his vacations 'cos he has 
> enough
> options in terms of which contracts he chooses to bid on.
>
>
> T

That is why I stopped being religious about technology.

If the customer pays for doing a something in language X, 
operating system Y, that is all that counts for me at the end of 
the day.

Otherwise you are forced to travel a lot, if you only do certain 
types of technologies.

--
Paulo