New account creation is still broken

[Ganado]

I remember somebody mentioned a while back that new account creation is broken, but I can't find the post*.

I tried to make an account just as a test, and the point where it breaks is that this site never sends a confirmation email.

Does the site admin know about this?
https://cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/133467/3/#msg716687

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.

Previous, related threads/posts...
https://cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/156291/
https://cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/221050/
https://cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/285445/#msg1239878 (*edit: I found the post!)

[George PlusPlus]

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.

[zapshe]

Wish they'd give some trusted individuals access to make updates to the site.

[George PlusPlus]

If'n I understand the circumstances the admin originally created cplusplus as a hobby and then RL took over.

The site is on life-support, barely hangin' on.

[seeplus]

Wish they'd give some trusted individuals access to make updates to the site.

Seconded. Even if it's just the ability for account/post maintenance.

[George PlusPlus]

Wish they'd give some trusted individuals access to make updates to the site.

Not the first time this has been suggested. And not the first time it will be ignored most likely.

Neglect can kill a site quite easily, though it won't be quick.

[George PlusPlus]

Please note the copyright date for cplusplus.com:

© cplusplus.com, 2000-2022

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.

[mbozzi]

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.

Well, it says 2024 now.

[DizzyDon]

The "legacy" version of the site says:

© cplusplus.com, 2000-2022 - All rights reserved - v3.2

The "modern" version says:

© cplusplus.com, 2000-2024 - All rights reserved - v3.3.3

So he hasn't completely abandoned the site.
Maybe he broke the registration when he updated it.

[mbozzi]

Oh - I'm looking at the "modern" version. Thought it might have been updated.

[George PlusPlus]

I'm looking at the "modern" version.

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]

May I suggest again my script for making this site look better...?

EDIT: For white mode, you can use #006eff instead of #33AFFF

function beautiful()
{
	//Forum
	var a = document.getElementsByClassName("top");
	var b = document.getElementsByClassName("cont");
	var c = document.getElementsByClassName("bot");

	for(var i = 0; i < a.length; i++)
	{
           a[i].style.fontFamily = "verdana";
           a[i].style.textDecoration = "none";
           b[i].style.fontFamily = "Lato";
           c[i].style.fontFamily = "verdana";

           if(b[i].innerHTML.length > 145)
           {
                var str = b[i].innerHTML;
               b[i].innerHTML = str.substring(0, 142).trim();
               b[i].innerHTML += "...";
           }
	}

	//All Links.. hard to differentiate
	var links = document.getElementsByTagName("a");
	for(var i=0, max=links.length; i<max; i++)
	{
		links[i].style.textDecoration = "none";

		if(links[i].parentNode.style.fontFamily != "verdana")
		   links[i].style.fontFamily = "Montserrat";
		links[i].style.color = "#33AFFF";
	}

	//Threads
	var d = document.getElementsByClassName("dwhat");
	var e = document.getElementsByClassName("dhow");
	var f = document.getElementsByClassName("dwhen");

	for(var i = 0; i < d.length; i++)
	{
           d[i].style.fontFamily = "Segoe UI";
           e[i].style.fontFamily = "Segoe UI";

           var style = window.getComputedStyle(d[i], null).getPropertyValue('font-size');
           var fontSize = parseFloat(style); 
           d[i].style.fontSize = (fontSize + 2) + 'px';

           f[i].style.fontFamily = "verdana";
	}

	var space = document.getElementsByClassName("C_bn");
	//space[0].remove();
}

beautiful();

[George PlusPlus]

Suggest away, but then when it comes to websites and how they look I'm a knuckle draggin' retro-tech kinda person.

[DizzyDon]

@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.

Look up "javascript var vs let".
https://www.google.com/search?q=javascript+var+vs+let

[zapshe]

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.

[helios]

Lua is even worse.

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.

[zapshe]

It should definitely be the opposite, making variables global only if asked explicitly.

But if we're gonna hate on languages, Lisp is my all-time most hated one. This is an if statement:

(if (and (< (abs curRPM) 50) (eq braking (- 10)))

But its the only supported programming language for VESC motor controllers..

[seeplus]

It's only simple prefix notation.......

[zapshe]

It's only simple prefix notation.......

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.

[seeplus]

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.....