Programming in a language that has a built-in garbage collector is like driving a car without a stick shift
What does that make Rust?
>>53778689
Is this a bad thing?
>>53778689
Stick shifts are for autists tho
Programming in a weakly typed language is like driving a car that can burn gas and biodiesel
>>53778689
the correct analogy would be, it's like driving a car with automatic only. it might be comfy, but since it's geared to be comfy it's not high speed by nature. on the other hand, there's the double clutch gearboxes which automatically shift and let you control when to shift; this would be rust.
c/c++ is a sequential gearbox in this analogy. even lighter, all things considered, but also more maintenance intensive and, in the end, not really much faster than the double clutch.
that being said, i would tend to think the sequential is all non-gc languages and the difference in gc ones is actually between the american highway-automatic and the ferrari double clutch. but that's just, like, my opinion, mate.
if you say so :3
Smart? The only people who have any business driving sticks are those who drive for sport. There is literally no advantage to anyone else using one. Americans realized this long ago.
>>53778701
meme language for tumblrinas
>>53778689
>Programming in a language that has a built-in garbage collector is like taking the bus
non-functional programming is pretty much automatic transmission
>>53778760
Found the automaticuck
>>53779523
Found the guy who still believes manuals are more efficient than modern automatics.
>>53778781
That's using a dynamic typed language. Weak typing is like driving a car that each pedal will do something random every time you press it.
>>53779761
Found the guy who thinks the only argument is efficiency
>>53780326
Found the guy who thinks his tube-amp-aficionado tier opinion defines what is good.
>>53779761
>modern automatics
you mean CVT? Almost everybody who knows the first thing about cars knows these are absolute shit. Forced on to the market because of 1 to 2 mpg improvement in fuel economy and overbearing government regulations which force auto companies to put efficiency over everything.
>It's a third worlders and europoors brag about using poorfag cars thread
>>53779761
negligible to small gains depending on what auto you're comparing it to, typically 1-2MPG advantage to the manual. What it does give you is control. Some autos are a bitch and are constantly a gear over or under which can be infuriating to drive.
Programming in Scheme is like bending the fabric of space-time to transport yourself instantly from a point to another
>>53781105
>third worlders and europoors
>yurop
>not third world
>>53778760
Holy shit you don't have the brain to drive with a stick huh?
>>53781269
Driving stick doesn't require any more intelligence than auto.
It just depends what you learned on.
> generating garbage
w e w
>>53781105
>its an asukafag
>>53778760
Found the muhrican
>>53778827
I think I get what you mean, but saying 'more maintenance intensive' is easy to misunderstand. I think you mean that it takes more work to drive, but your phrasing could be easily misunderstood as something about actual transmission maintenance.
IMO reasons to drive a stick:
Cheaper and cheaper to repair.
Push start capability.
Actually forces you to pay more attention to driving = safer.
More fun.
Potentially better gas mileage, but none of the manufacturers are adding high enough gears in current manual transmissions unfortunately.
in our family company we use microsoft access and we dont need anything else
>tfw manual SS VY
Fucking skid rig mate
>>53779761
Torque converters? no
CVT? no
DCT? yes
most of the auto industry uses the former 2
>Buying a manual in 2016
Stop right there you Vin Diesel wannabe. The ONLY literal reason in the past 5 years to buy a manual is for the fun factor if you live in an area with open roads.
inb4 "muh fuel efficiency", 99% of you don't even know how to drive a manual for efficient fuel consumption, and even if you did an automatic would be just as good or better.
And no, I'm not American. Can just see past the autism that is "muh clutch"
Mfw poors in this thread don't drive beamers
>>53781288
Who said anything about intelligence faggot?
>>53781776
The 'safer' argument is always fucking some retard kid who drives a piece of shit civic thinking he is better than other people because its a manual.
The FACT is, automatics are 'safer'. Something about to happen and you need to accelerate quickly? Well you can either take the take the time to properly downshift to get the power, or you could take the fraction of a time to floor the gas pedal and instantly accelerate.
Which one is safer?
And no, engine braking it not a safety feature because modern vehicles have the brakes able to stop it under full throttle.
I drive a fucking manual car and even I hate fucking faggot /o/ tools like you.
>>53781951
if the automatic offered in the car you choose isn't a DCT, manuals can be more efficient after a few months training. Broke 40 MPG in a car rated for 28 highway on a trip recently, and usually average over 30 in mixed traffic.
>>53782001
The difference between 30 highway and 40 highway is the speed you travel at and the consistency of said speed, not the transmission.
The energy used to turn the pump on an automatic and the general parasitic loss accounts for only 1 or 2 mpg.
>>53782024
shift points and slipping during the change effect the milage, in addition to ATF heating up over time. Top "gear" in a converter usually has a clutch to lock out a lot of that loss though.
it's usually between 2 and 5 MPG (mixed driving) when compared to a Torque converter, depending on quality, but I've seen some expensive ones match very nicely.
for reference all my road trips are done with cruise control, auto or manual. around 70 MPH on the eastern seaboard US.
>>53781992
>Well you can either take the take the time to properly downshift to get the power, or you could take the fraction of a time to floor the gas pedal and instantly accelerate.
That's a retarded argument, even besides the fact that you neglected 4/5 of my points. Unless you have enough horsepower that you can break traction at practically any speed, the manual is almost always more optimal for the type of acceleration needed to get out of the way of a potential accident. Even beyond that, accelerating out of danger is such an edge-case scenario that it's next to meaningless. Also, I said nothing about engine braking.
SMG master race reporting in.
Driving a manual in stop and go traffic fucking sucks.
Not real fond of driving an automatic in the snow, either...
Used to drive an '02 M5, then I fucked up my left ankle. Can't ride a bike for the same reason.
So... '08 M5 it was.
I'm ok in my Lisp bike, thank you very much.
I just like 80s cars and most of those are manual. Safer, more efficient, faster, easier/harder who cares. I think it's fun, the sensation of moving into the proper gear and rev-matching to downshift for the right amount of power to exit the turn. Or seeing just how quick and smooth I can get my gear changes. It's like the difference between watching a movie and playing a video game
>>53778689
who the fuck cannot drive a manual?
That is literally KEK worthy of note. In my country we actually have a separate license test for automatics and those who have done that cannot drive regular vehicles. Plus manuals are in the 80-90% market share here.
KEK
>>53780382
both of you? your the one implying that efficiency is.
>>53778781
... and if you use both: BOOOOM. So although you can use whatever you want, you must watch very closely every variable, because realistically you can't use both.
>>53781981
>you don't have the brain to drive with a stick huh?
>>53781951
...so far the only argument presented has been that automatic...is the more fuel efficient one.
>reading in 2016
yeah, i know, its bogus isnt it
>>53778689
Sounds good to me. Automatic = gets you to the same destination but easier.
so the clearly superior option in 2016?
>>53784225
you waste more fuel and have less power with automatic
>>53784279
lolno
>>53784293
lolyeah
>>53784279
Who cares? It's trivial. The point is to get there.
>>53784309
post your figures.
orite, you have none.
Fact is driving style is more important than your transmission for fuel economy. Less power, maybe. These two are mutually exclusive though.
If you have a manual, just accept it's a personal choice because you prefer it. Maybe you find it more fun. The rest of us just wanna get to work.
>>53784279
>>53784293
>>53784309
>you waste more fuel
lolno
> have less power
lolyeah
Each time I type malloc I feel like a leet haxor.
>>53784309
lolno
https://www.0-60specs.com/bmw-335i-0-60-times/
As transmissions evolve beyond 6 speeds, MT's are having difficulties adapting.
But again, SMG master race...
>>53784356
post your figures
orite, you have none.
fact is, i answered your baseless comment with another baseless comment, so that any argument you presented to me would be literally presentable to you.
if all you have is an opinion, just accept its an opinion because its your own. maybe you find it more fun. the rest of us just wanna have an actual discussion
>>53784378
>MT's are having difficulties adapting.
yeap
>MT`s are inferior yet
nope
>>53784363
Fuel economy is usually much better in stick shift-equipped cars. Parasitic power losses from the torque converter and hydraulic pump can rob an automatic-equipped car of a small percentage of its power, along with its fuel efficiency. Depending on driving style and road conditions, drivers can increase their fuel economy by as much as 15 percent.
>These plebs don't have a high stall torque converter with an aggressive camshaft
>>53784425
You're deluding yourself if you think that a manual offers better fuel economy in real-world driving. Just admit that you find it more fun.
>>53784483
are you kidding, i hate them. what a pain to drive. didnt even have a manual license till i got my blacks. they are better for fuel efficiency.
>>53784483
it's a fact.
Can't drive manual?
>>53784526
>it's a fact.
maybe 10 years ago
modern autos, whether CVT or traditional geared w/ torque converter or DCTs, have equal or better fuel economy than manuals. however, other than a good paddle shifter setup, they aren't as fun. fun is subjective, so not everyone may agree (especially those commuting in heavy traffic).
in other words, who the fuck cares, drive what you want and at least try to enjoy it.
>>53784549
yeah, getting old sucks. but sorry, the kids who are limber and young still can shift their sticks around harder then you, babe
>/g/ suggesting a new car because muh modern automatic transmission
>meanwhile new cars essentially have a blackbox
Any /g/ worthy car, a manual transmission would be a better option
>all these people making analogies
It's like driving a car that has no exhaust but requires you to manually clean the engine after driving.
Is this an american thing? I never heard of this kind of autism about car transmission before.
Automatic is a fad that didn't caught on and manual is just the way it is.
>>53784784
mechanical fuel injection or carbed for maximum freedom
So, easy, convenient, and only slightly slower?
>>53778689
As in comfy and sufficient in most situations.
>>53784924
god, even the pro-manuals here can probably feel the third world oozing from this post
>>53784784
>>53786061
>posting stale bait
>>53786079
>driving a stale car
Try buying a vehicle from this century m8
>>53786090
Who said I wasn't?
>implying there's anything wrong with an old car
My next car's from 72
>>53786150
Why don't you buy a horse next?
>>53786174
Already have one. Happy trolling, I'm out
>>53785606
Then why is america the only cunt where auto is the norm?
We've had auto in france for years and mysteriously manual is still the norm.
>>53784065
America. I was 18 before I met someone who owned a manual. Automatic is 95%+ of the market. Most dealerships don't even carry them normally, you have to have them ordered in unless it's a sports car.
And no, we don't have a separate license for manual.
>>53778760
I'm European, drove a stick all my life, and I 100% agree.
It's an old technology that should have been buried a decade ago.
The only reason we still have to use it here is because we have weak ass cars and vans. Our Transit Connect got a 1.6L engine - strongest variant. In the US all models are above 2.0L.
> inb4 switching back at high speed to take over takes skills
>>53778760
Honestly my only argument for why they're worth it is because they're so much more fun. It feels like you're actually driving the car instead of just directing it. And honestly that's enough for me
>>53778689
C# is my favorite language.
I only drive manual trans vehicles.
Most higher class cars have automatic transmission by default. Let that sink in.
>>53780983
>CVT? Almost everybody who knows the first thing about cars knows these are absolute shit.
This is absolutely false.
The same car with:
Regular Automatic
Stick Shift
CVT
will accelerate faster and perform better on a CVT.
>>53781105
>Yurop
>poorfag cars
BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Porsche, Jaguar, Bentley, Aston Martin, McLaren, Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini, Bugatti...
>>53778760
Unless you drive a dual clutch sports car you are wrong.
>>53778760
>this shit
>and all the replies
Holy shit you're all retarded.
There's benefits to driving stick. It's not just some "outdated mechanic".
You're just fucking retarded.
>people find it more fun to do more meanial work
>people are upset about their skills in their meanial work are pointless in modern society
>they bitch about it constantly
>>53787936
>he doesn't enjoy driving
Opinion discarded, you disgusting fuck
>>53788018
Who said anything about driving?
>>53787789
lol no. stick allows me to hypermile. 40 mpg in a car thats supposed to only get 34. its been the same any time i drive a manual, i always get better mpg
>>53778827
this guy nails it.
>>53788265
sorry
>>53787789
i misread your post.your right continue
>>53787554
And since everything is taxed out the ass, nobody can afford those so only rich Arabs and Americans buy them.
Yurop is a third-world shithole.
>>53788018
why would I enjoy driving?
it's just a means of getting from point A to point B.
the same way I don't understand people who jizz over how powerful and stylish their car is. it's just a vehicle for transportation.
>>53788265
so?
better mpg only matters if you are poor.
and if you are poor, then it won't help you.
same shit the other way, if you got money, you don't care.
>>53788316
some people enjoy it, you dont. its simple.
For instance something you might enjoy other might think its just retarded, and you will call them retarded because they dont understand. I have a car just for point a to point b that i do not enjoy driving, and a benz that i work on and drive on weekends.
>>53788312
B-but i can...
>>53788343
i agree. but i got 2 cars 1 for mpgs and one for the powa
>>53788386
>>53788316
>it's just a means of getting from point A to point B
No, that's just what you see it as
>>53788423
Meh, I have a business car that I use when I have to drive long distances. The other one is a shitbox, small car, good mpg.
But even if I go full eco, use fifth gear all the time... yeah I end up with more in the tank, but then again, I don't make big trips if I don't have enough left.
If I am low on fuel, I just fill it up.
>>53788440
They're intendeed for transport, nothing more, nothing less. Only autists think driving is "fun", the same kind of people who think manual transmissions are "more fun" or still relevant in any way.
>>53788488
>autist calling others autistic
Oh the irony
>>53778701
gc is entirely optional in rust and nobody uses it
>>53779226
Precisely.
>ITT autists having a temper tantrum because people drive cars differently
fuck this board
>>53787789
>i can only think of shit my grandpa and bubba has told me
>my car is 38 years old, the same amount of time ive been a virgin
Modern automatic transmissions are superior to manuals in almost every way. They allow for more fuel efficiency, better torque curves, and a lot more GoFast™.
The only bonus a manual offers anymore is simplicity and ease of maintenance. The only real advantage they offer is "feel" to "enthusiasts".
>>53778689
Effective and completely fine in all but extreme performance cases?
