C++ offers lots of compelling things for embedded use cases, like enum classes (finally fixed in C23), constexpr, std::optional, namespaces, and atomics/generics that are much smaller dumpster fires.
There's an effort to extract the good parts and make it work for embedded use cases or even bring them into C. Khalil Estelle on WG21 has been working on an experimental, deterministic runtime for exception handling, to give one example. Constexpr is an example of the latter that's now showing up in C23.
I don't disagree, but these are in the ~2% convenience at most. With the huge baggage of including C++ in a project. The cost of learning C++ easily outweighs all those benefits. If you happen to have a proficient C++ team (that actually know embedded), go for it!
Speaking more broadly than just the std implementation, but result types like optional shouldn't be a 2% convenience, they should be used in most function calls that return errors. Rust is the obvious example here.
Funnily enough, the intellisense parser does support C syntax because it's using a commercial frontend by edison under the hood. MSVC's frontend doesn't.
Waymo vehicles are not driven remotely. Remote assistants give the autonomy stack suggestions for how to proceed rather than drive the vehicle. This doesn't require a low latency connection and the robot is still capable of stopping when the situation changes or proceeding as soon as it's able to without a control handover.
Yes, they are not usually driven remotely, but an operator can take the wheel in an emergency situation. Most of the interventions are "this plan or that one?" decisions from the teleoperators.
That still isn't really "autonomous," but it's a lot closer than anything Tesla has done. My question, though, is how frequent the interventions actually are.
It also doesn't scale, which is the big problem. Waymo works but excruciatingly mapping out the city and its routes. It's not a generalized autonomous driving algorithm.
Which is probably fine, but it does mean it will never make it to a lot of areas.
The dude took slaves, instituted a brutal gold quota, hung the corpses of resistors to rot, and other cartoonishly evil things. He was such a piece of work even by Spanish colonial standards that he was hauled back to Spain and stripped of his governorship.
Even by Spanish colonial standards? Those colonial standards were not at all low, they were more advanced than any of their equivalent European counterparts. Any native people were considered children of god, due to their Catholic view, and us such viewed as free people. And those were the first laws proposed already in 1513 in Burgos. More advanced laws came some decades later by Bartolomé de las Casas.
In reality the settlers were not supervised and the laws were not always followed, but they were expected by the Government back in European Spain.
There is some dispute on whether all those accusations were true, or politically motivated slander. Sure he did evil things by our standards, but there's no certainty whether he was that much worse than other rulers of that time. Taking slaves and hanging people alone isn't that special for the era.
The things I've listed are the uncontroversial ones. He presented said slaves to the king and Queen. His own son wrote a biography lionizing his father and talking about the gold quota. We have the court records of his governorship being stripped for brutality.
Genetic contributions from any individual ancestor outside the direct maternal line quickly becomes almost indistinguishable once you get more than a few generations out. Centuries out like Columbus is, it's entirely possible for him to have contributed 0 base pairs to any of his descendants.
Some of Columbus' descendants still hold noble titles though, like the Duke of Veragua:
Not everywhere in the world uses the same concrete walls. It's quite common to see dozens of access points trying to share the same three 20MHz channels available at 2.4GHz in places like the US or dense areas in Asia.
I live in the US and I just counted 65 visible APs on 5GHz. The DFS channels aren't usable in this area, so almost all of those are trying to share the same 2 80MHz channels.
That isn't the assumption. Modern archaeologists usually assume that ancient people were as intelligent as we are today, or even more so.
What's not assumed is that they had the same thought patterns. People don't derive ideas uniformly from the space of all possible ideas, they tend to think within the constraints and realities of past experiences. If you build a house, it's going to be similar to houses you've seen before. If you paint a painting, it's going to be a painting rather than some other means of expressing yourself with colored pigments.
In other words, ideas are subject to the same kinds of path dependence that technology is. When we see something that's severely anachronistic (outside of it's "normal" place in time), the initial priors are that things like the dating are wrong rather than ab initio invention of a whole suite of different ideas that just happened to be preserved for us.
I worked at a company that decided to do a new design because the chips for the old one had been out of production for decades and a solid percentage of what was still available on eBay was sitting in the warehouse to be scavenged for new production.
The very idea that there would a specific set of canonical literature and beliefs that define a religion would have been a radically new idea if we go far enough back. It originated with early Christians and other Jewish groups in the Roman empire and it's not something that many other religious traditions adapted before the modern era.
Would a group be able to call itself Christian, while not believing in a single divine god and that Jesus was his prophet?
Would someone be able to call themselves Jewish, without considering themselves one of ‘god’s chosen people’ who had a covenant with that one god?
Would someone be able to call themselves Hindu without believing in the dharma?
Would someone be able to call themselves Muslim without believing in the one god, with Mohammed as his prophet?
Would someone be able to call themselves Buddhist without believing in Siddhartha Gautama, the dharma, and that enlightenment could exist.
At least, by anyone serious about the meaning of those groups or being at all honest about it. (Plenty of ‘Christmas Mass’ Catholics and non-observant Jews from a community identity perspective, but most would freely admit they aren’t ‘religious’ depending on who is asking).
At literally any point since those religions existed?
That is my point - these groups are fundamentally defined by beliefs, and while they are often pretty flexible on the margins, every one of them has core beliefs that define it and are non-negotiable.
Or do you think a Polytheistic Jew, and/or one with no genetic or conversion history is going to be accepted at Temple, or a Hindu who follows the Bible?
> Would a group be able to call itself Christian, while not believing in a single divine god and that Jesus was his prophet?
That was the whole debate over Arianism.
You can see this same sort of tension in the Torah too, specifically in the Deuteronomistic account. There's all sorts of remarks about those dang southern Jews and their heretical paganism. We also know of the apparently polytheistic Elephantine Jews from archaeological/literary evidence.
Let's not forget that monotheism and the impossibility of other gods is also a particularly Abrahamic belief that's not widely shared in other ancient traditions.
There's an effort to extract the good parts and make it work for embedded use cases or even bring them into C. Khalil Estelle on WG21 has been working on an experimental, deterministic runtime for exception handling, to give one example. Constexpr is an example of the latter that's now showing up in C23.
reply