I know that using .c and .h files is the traditional way of doing it in C, and I started the engine this way, but to be honest, is there any gain to it in this scenario?
The headers are library code, and having more files just means more maintenance and build complexity. Is there another advantage I am not aware of?
The question should probably be what you gain from the header files? If you just want the simplicity you can "#include \"some_file.c\"" instead. Functionally it's no different, but it's less surprising to other people and it's an easier transition to a real build system if/when you need it. I think the reason it's being raised is because people think your writing a header only library.
In my experience, including `"some_file.h"` is more common than `"some_file.c"`. I also like knowing at a quick glance what the entry point/main file is. That's less explicit when all the files have the same extension.
There's an important difference between C++ style header-only libs, where the implementation is often done in inline code (especially for template-heavy APIs) and thus visible in each compilation unit (which is indeed bad for compile times), and "STB-style single-file libs", where the implementation is only visible in a single compilation unit.
The difference between a single .h file and a .h/.c pair is really just different packaging for distribution and integration into projects.
Thank you for the feedback and gist, I will take it into consideration.
We use the 'happy path' style at work. It is OK. I find it has its own set of disadvantages as well. I am also not a fan of negative/negating conditions.
Whenever possible, I try to write the code the way I would explain it in plain language. This may be antithetical to the majority of modern programming, but I am OK with that.
A lot of Republicans support Net Neutrality, including the stalwart conservative Scalia. The main reason so many current Republicans oppose it, is the association with Obama, and the piles of money Telecom is floating their way.
People often pick and choose their fights. Common utility companies like power and water are pretty different from regulating ISPs.
They're controlled locally, by the state or municipality. So changes in policy don't affect the entire US. The utility companies have their own problems, like not being incentivised to innovate much. Power companies have also pushed for onerous regulations on solar power in the past to maintain their monopoly on providing power.
> Erm, this is not about whether the internet is regulated or not.
Then you are in the wrong place, this discussion is about applying the Title 2 regulations on ISPs. I'm not sure which "net neutrality" you are referring to which is not about regulation.
Been using void for a couple of years. I could not be happier with it. I also need a non-systemd distro for production, found this project https://github.com/cloux/aws-devuan it's devuan + runit for aws.
I find it funny that some people still see Net Neutrality as 'government controlling the internet'. They should take a look at FOSTA if they want to know what government controlling the internet really looks like.
It is government controlling the internet. It's the extent and who that is different. In this case, it's only forcing a fair playing field. Kinda like highways being public vs. toll instead of telling you what cars you are and are not allowed to drive. I'd like a "free" internet, but I still have to admit it's going to cost someone else's "freedom".
No, that implies companies have the same rights as individual people. They do not and should not as they don’t have the same legal constraints as people. There’s no human equivalent to many of the abilities enjoyed by corporations and corporations don’t die and cannot be imprisoned. They’re also able to raise funds in ways humans may not. The list goes on from there.
What I said doesn't imply this at all. I'm just stating that there's a trade-off between the freedom of corporations and the freedom of the people (but different kind of freedoms, ofc)
You're contradicting everything the pro net neutrality people have said for years, namely that without it the ISPs will control the Internet. Part of the premise is that the ISPs do in fact have control over the Internet by acting as the monopoly access point, and that they can do various terrible things accordingly. If you control the ISPs - ie how almost all Americans access the Internet - you inherently do control the Internet.
> They should take a look at FOSTA if they want to know what government controlling the internet really looks like.
Unfortunately, that's not a winning argument from a rhetorical perspective. Almost every single person in both the House and the Senate, of both parties, voted for FOSTA/SESTA.
FOSTA and SESTA are truly abominable bills. They're arguably the most anti-gay bills passed at the federal level since DOMA in 1996. But telling people "net neutrality isn't about controlling the Internet, because it's not as bad as these other bills that received near-unanimous, bipartisan support" isn't going to win over any allies who weren't already in your camp on both issues in the first place.
I made no mention of it 'not being as bad' as other bills. I stand by my statement. Net Neutrality is government regulating ISPs. ISPs are not the internet.
And I think it could convert those in the anti camp. Some are against Net Neutrality because they see it as government control of the internet (it is not). They need to recognize that FOSTA is directly what they perceive Net Neutrality to be (at least in terms of results).
> And I think it could convert those in the anti camp. Some are against Net Neutrality because they see it as government control of the internet (it is not). They need to recognize that FOSTA is directly what they perceive Net Neutrality to be (at least in terms of results).
As someone who's fairly active around both issues, trust me when I say that all this will do is solidify their opposition to net neutrality, and in the worst case, strengthen their support of FOSTA/SESTA.
No, it's not consistent. But it's also not a line of reasoning that will work with opponents of net neutrality. Politics isn't always cut and dry the way we might wish.
In my experience in discussing these issues with people who were pro-FOSTA, this argument has helped them realize that it is violating the first amendment, and an example of government controlling the internet. So I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
> Net Neutrality is government regulating ISPs. ISPs are not the internet.
I've been doing some research on the prelude to Russian revolution and what I discovered is that Communist party of USSR did not start or create the concept of a brutal 'Secret Police'. The Tsar of Russia created the secret police and they had no concept of civil liberties to begin it.
When Communist party took over, they merely used this concept (and bolstered it), in addition to all the other terrible things they did.
Similarly, China didn't end up with a brutal communist party, they had a brutal Emperor, and Chinese communist party just step into that place (preceded briefly by Republic of China).
My point is, generally a tyrannical control of things begins with a more nobler or palpable reason, which eventually is taken over by bad people.
Take for instance, France has ban burqas in public places. You would think that the American right would consider this to be a noble thing and would wanna advocate it, but they won't because this gives the govt power, and eventually this power could and would be used against them.
Today you're claiming that net neutrality is govt controlling ISPs, not the Internet. But can a radical religious govt ban blasphemy on the internet by forcing the ISPs? FOSTA-SESTA were terrible things which passed, without any anti-NN side opposing them, and now nearly everyone in this thread is saying "Oh if you have a problem with NN how come you don't say anything to FOSTA-SESTA".
