Dungeon Crawler Carl is not science fiction. At least I would not recommend it to someone looking for science fiction with “interesting ideas.” It’s a comedy about an RPG with magic.
But if that’s what you’re looking for, it’s pretty good
Probably the most novel part of DCC is that it's kind of an implicit response to a whole class of 'what if the world worked like an RPG' fiction, examinining the premises those works as a genre leave glossed over. Which is neat in a meta-textual kind of way, but yeah, definitely not science fiction.
Yeah, you can't blame the monitor setup for distractions.
Up to a point, more screen real-estate is a universally good thing. Although beyond, say, two 24-27" screens or one great big one, you get into rapidly diminishing returns.
Yep, I just turn on the Leechblocker's lockdown mode which blocks all the distracting sites on my browser, I can focus on my work, without giving up any of my monitors, and all the advantages they provide me
That challenge was pretty stupid. I could read the question and I’m not even a native speaker. We can of course easily come up with much better challenges
As a TA, I've seen adults try to pass initial college calculus many times (and failing - you were allowed to try several times) with enormous effort. It's not a small multiplier
And this was still people selected from the small subset of the population choosing an engineering major. Human are much, much more different than you seem to think
Good for you. Those people likely didn’t have a true enthusiasm to learn the content, they just stressed and tried to cram themselves by. Kinda proves my point really.
We identify the real number 2 with the rational number 2 with the integer 2 with the natural number 2. It does not seem so strange to also identify the complex number 2 with those.
If you say "this function f operates on the integers", you can't turn around and then go "ooh but it has solutions in the rationals!" No it doesn't, it doesn't exist in that space.
You can't do this for general functions, but it's fine to do in cases where the definition of f naturally embeds into the rationals. For example, a polynomial over Z is also a polynomial over Q or C.
> C++ doesn't take longer to compile if you don't abuse templates.
Surprisingly, this is not true. I've written a C++ file only to realize at the end that I did not use any C++ features. Renaming the file to .c halved the compilation time.
On some compiler toolchains (IIRC MSVC was the main offender) you get a lot more code pulled into your source file when including a C stdlib header (like <stdio.h>) in C++ mode versus C mode. Basically a couple hundred lines in C mode versus thousands of lines in C++ mode.
I agree it shouldn't really matter if there's no C++ features in play, but I suppose third party headers could bite you if they use #ifdef __cplusplus to guard optional C++ extensions on top of their basic C interface. In that case the compiler could be dealing with dramatically more complex code when you build in C++ mode.
Maybe it is similar for the same compiler (but one should check, I suspect C could still be faster), but then there are much more C compilers. For example, TCC is a lot faster than GCC.
tcc is 8x faster, twice as fast isn't doing it justice.
As for the header thing, that'd could potentially be true if the compile time was something like 450ms -> 220ms, but why bother saying it when you're only saving a few hundred milliseconds
Going from 220 to 450 ms would be a disaster in my project. It has many thousands of files. Recompilation of almost everything happens from time to time.
If those made-up numbers were true, they would be very significant and an argument in favor of keeping the code in C
A 200ms difference is adding or removing 200lines lines of implementation, and spliting it up into a file can make it slower because of include overhead. You completely made up C being twice as fast as C++.
reply