Every time a programmer downloads Dev-C++...

[1yR4jE8b]

God kills a kitten. THINK OF THE KITTENS

[ldolt]

What would you use instead of Dev-C++? sorry for the stupid question but i was just wondering (i don't use Dev-C++ but some of the older teachers in uni use it sometimes).

[ne555]

Turbo C++

Now seriously, get an updated up to date compiler and make sure that your IDE support it.

[Catfish2]

Old Dev-C++ is decent enough for small, one-man C++03 projects.

[LB]

Thank god programmers don't download Dev-C++. Just random people who have no dignity download it.

[1yR4jE8b]

What would you use instead of Dev-C++? sorry for the stupid question but i was just wondering (i don't use Dev-C++ but some of the older teachers in uni use it sometimes).

Visual C++ Express, CodeBlocks, CodeLite, Eclipse, Netbeans, Vim/Emacs + x-terminal-emulator. Anything that's been updated in the past forever ago or so...

[LB]

Anything from the last half decade.

[BHX]

Which Dev-C++? Bloodshed? wx? Orwell? There is now 3 Dev-C++'s, the old outdated Bloodshed Dev-C++, the wxDev-C++ and just recently Orwell's Dev-C++.

[1yR4jE8b]

Bloodshed, hence why God kills kittens; it's in the name.

[BHX]

If God is killing kittens then chances are a supreme being such as Him would just have killed them humanely which would be bloodless. If there is a supreme being He wouldn't have to kill them, He would just make the fall over dead. :P

[o1vk4iN6]

Bloodshed doesn't imply blood being shed. :^|

[Catfish2]

theWorld.thePeople.darkestfright->age /= 2;

[ne555]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Demeter#In_object-oriented_programming
Also your scheme does not contemplate the addition or remove of people.the_people["darkestfright"]
Finally, ¿why a pointer?


Off topic: god is not omnipotent.

[BHX]

@xerzi:
Yes it does, that is kind of where it came from:

blood·shed [bluhd-shed]
noun
1. destruction of life, as in war or murder; slaughter.
2. the shedding of blood by injury, wound, etc.

[chrisname]

Yeah but if you burn people to death, they might not actually bleed, but it still counts as bloodshed.

[Cheraphy]

ne555 wrote:

god is not omnipotent.

Depending on which religion you consult, yea he is. Everyone's favorite bronze age fairy tale seems to think so.

[BHX]

chrisname wrote:

Yeah but if you burn people to death, they might not actually bleed, but it still counts as bloodshed.

That is kind of the grey area if you look at religion. The whole reason Christians started burning people at the stake was because they couldn't shed blood. Burning them was the effective way of killing people without shedding blood. So if you follow the definition above, yes it is bloodshed (murder), or follow religion and it is just a great BBQ ;).

Though, if murder is considered bloodshed, then snapping someone's neck and killing them counts too (again no blood shed there).

[ne555]

Hilarious.

@xander337: common misconception. If there were creators/rulers there is no need for them (individually or in group) to be omnipotent.
¿Can you shed some light in the bronze age religion?

[Cheraphy]

To be omnipotent is to be all powerful. Just because there is a fallacy doesn't mean religion does not state it. (Actually a metric fuck ton of what many of religions state is fallacious in nature)

Anyways, Abrahamic religions. Specifically Christianity.

Jeremiah 32:17, 32:27
Matthew 19:26
Job 42:2
Revelation 19:6

[ne555]

Beautiful words, but when it comes to action

Judges 1 19 wrote:

"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

(I suppose that's a iron age example)

I was not pointing the paradox, just saying that killing a goat by staring at it is more difficult than creating an star.