| comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com | Google Groups |  |
| Unsure why you received this message? You previously subscribed to digests from this group, but we haven't been sending them for a while. We fixed that, but if you don't want to get these messages, send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
- Visual C++ Version 6 (Visual Studio 98) - 17 Updates
- Apology to the group - 1 Update
- High Frequency Trading/C++ - 1 Update
- MSVC++ anonymous union in struct -- compile-time initialization of non-first member - 1 Update
- "C++14 Is Here: Summary of New Features" - 1 Update
| Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Sep 16 08:46PM +0200 > I am making perfect sense mate: if Adam didn't exist then neither did > those that the OT claimed were descended from him including Abraham and > Moses: if Adam never existed then the entire OT is indeed false. The fact that two documents were at some point in time thrown together under a common name does not imply that the falsehood of one implies the falshood of the other. Compare (hypothetical): a yournal publishes the flogiston theory and the releativity theory. Does the fact that the flogiston theory is now considered false have any implications for the relativity theory? Of course not. Wouter van Ooijen (6.9 on the scale of Dawkins) |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 16 07:50PM +0100 On 16/09/2014 19:46, Wouter van Ooijen wrote: > The fact that two documents were at some point in time thrown together > under a common name does not imply that the falsehood of one implies the > falshood of the other. Indeed however both these documents are false whether thrown together or not. > releativity theory. Does the fact that the flogiston theory is now > considered false have any implications for the relativity theory? Of > course not. Erroneous analogy as the entire OT is indeed false. /Flibble |
| Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com>: Sep 16 02:10PM -0500 On 9/13/2014 6:25 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Should be getting it next week. > Best regards, > Rick C. Hodgin We had serious problems with the STL in VC6. We then moved to VC 2003 and got a good STL but the 256 character limit on mangled variable names had serious problems in the linker. We then moved to VC 2005 which had just come out and have not left yet. Everything just works "good enough". Lynn |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 17 07:11AM +1200 Stuart wrote: > Remote Debugging feature. VC6.0 was perfectly fine for the subset of > features I was using. I daresay that VC6.0 would be fine for the > majority of C++ programmers as well. That's a joke, right? I seriously doubt any of my current or former colleagues would suffer VC6.0 for long. I had a guts full of it in the 90s. > cease using it, no matter how much the language has evolved (the Ada95 > language may be way superior to C++, but it has only a small community > and few tools). True enough, VC6.0 drove me to stop developing on windows! -- Ian Collins |
| Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Sep 16 09:11PM +0200 Mr Flibble schreef op 16-Sep-14 8:50 PM: >> falshood of the other. > Indeed however both these documents are false whether thrown together or > not. That is a valid position, which I happen to agree to, but that is both beside the point I was making. >>> if Adam never existed then the entire OT is indeed false. That reasoning (the 'then' part) is false. I know this is a regligious flame war, totally inappropriate on comp.lang.c++, sorry for feeding the trolls, but correct reasoning still has its value... Wouter |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Sep 16 07:33PM >Solution. The project can contain source files related to a >particular subset, and the solution contains multiple projects which >relate to some larger thing. Subversion, CVS, Clearcase, bitkeeper, git all have the notion of 'projects' which maintain related source files. Nothing new here. >scope in the editor. This allows all instances of a particular symbol >to be renamed, refactored, etc., automatically through the use of the >assistance tools. sed/awk, although I can count the number of times i've needed to rename a symbol on one thumb over the last 40 years (granted it was much more painful with punched cards or paper tape :-). >faster, supports more Windows, offers intuitive things like "Autos" >which shows variables related to the nearby source lines, and much >more. Not applicable to embedded development with a non-windows target. >At least that's been my experience. Your mileage obviously varies. :-) I've been fortunate enough to never have developed for Windows in the last 40 years. |
| Stuart <DerTopper@web.de>: Sep 16 09:37PM +0200 >> cease using it, no matter how much the language has evolved (the Ada95 >> language may be way superior to C++, but it has only a small community >> and few tools). On 09/16/14, Scott Lurndal wrote: > I think you underestimate the number of C++ programmers that don't > use fancy IDE's. That's probably true. I used to think that only the absolute minority of C++ programmers used no IDEs. When I first saw the command line interface for the Windows Debugger WinDbg, I almost had a stroke. I could not believe that one had to learn all those keystrokes just in order to open a particular file, place a break-point and start debugging. Under Visual C this is just two mouse clicks, so there is no need to read an instruction manual. But this is probably the vim-effect: Some people love it (because they don't ever have to use that strange pointee device called "mouse") and some people hate it ("the only way to make vim more unusuable is to protect each command with a password" :-) . Even though I have majored in Computer Science I don't think that I'm smart enough to work with tools like vim or WinDbg. Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> writes: >> the C++ compilation process so complicated that most compiler vendors >> could only provide super slow compilation. That would effectively kill >> C++, even though it is only a quality-of-implementation issue. On 09/16/14, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Doubtful, very doubtful. Most programmers at CPOE don't bother > with IDE's and they're very productive. [snip] CPOE is probably not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computerized_physician_order_entry, is it? Regards, Stuart |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 16 02:46PM -0500 On 9/16/2014 3:01 AM, David Brown wrote: > disprove the existence of Thor - but you would not say that a lack of > believe in Thor requires "faith". > <http://www.last-thursday.org/> Your arguments are sound Mr Brown. Do you have links to the single-celled to multi-celled experiments or any resources? I would be interested and be forced to drop that point in the future. I also don't understand what you mean in the scientific laws do not contradict that one, referring to chaos becoming order. Can you elaborate? I am now sparked by a spirit of interest more than that of argument. |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 16 02:58PM -0500 On 9/16/2014 8:18 AM, J. Clarke wrote: >> they at varying stages of their evolution? > The same place all the half-human half "mighty man" people who live to > be a thousand are? Yet more logical fallacies..It gets really hard to have an intelligent conversation that way. >> on Earth is "still catching up?" > ...However there is this phenomenon called > "extinction" that you might have heard about. So let me get this right.... Timeline for <insert your species here> to become what we know today as a human being: <-------------------------------------------------------------------> Where is this mutant species...^? Or this one?.............................................^? You really expect me to believe everything up to here is extinct...^? |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Sep 16 08:11PM >[snip] >CPOE is probably not >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computerized_physician_order_entry, is it? Current Place of Employment (a alt.folklore.computers acronym for us oldsters). |
| "Tobias Müller" <troplin@bluewin.ch>: Sep 16 08:47PM > It isn't nonsense mate: humans evolved ergo there was no *first* human. But if humans evolved from _other species_ there must have been a first first one, right? But IMO the notion of species only makes sense at a given point or small period of time but not over time in general. Tobi |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 16 10:25PM +0100 On 16/09/2014 21:47, Tobias Müller wrote: >> It isn't nonsense mate: humans evolved ergo there was no *first* human. > But if humans evolved from _other species_ there must have been a first > first one, right? No. /Flibble |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 16 02:58PM -0700 On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:18:19 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > I's arrived! It's arrived! Woo hoo! Will be installing it tonight > (James 4:15 -- Lord willing). > 1998 ... here I come! :-) :-) :-) I was able to get it installed, setup the workspace, and get it to compile within one hour in my Windows Server 2003 VM. Issues I ran into, and had to workaround: (1) Compiler ran out of memory. Had to use /Zm500 to give 5x normal memory. (2) VC++ 98 does not support unsigned __int64 to double conversions. (3) VC++ 98 did not recognize ExitThread(0); terminates a function, and required that I manually add a return(0); after. (4) Gave warnings on cos() and sin() that the double value was being truncated to a float. (5) CLEARTYPE_NATURAL_QUALITY was not defined in the library, so I had to add a custom #ifndef and #define. (6) M_PI wasn't defined. You can see the full list of work-arounds I added to my project here: http://www.libsf.org:7990/projects/LIB/repos/libsf/commits/ae0d53fdb59775d07a1231af149ce3a6450f084b Or here: https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/commit/ae0d53fdb59775d07a1231af149ce3a6450f084b The full rebuild is a little slower. Debugging is snappy. Edit-and- continue changes are applied in 2 to 3 seconds on my 1.6 GHz AMD64 laptop, which is disappointing. I was hoping for 1 or 2 seconds max. I'll have to figure out why that is. Maybe there's a setting I can tweak in VirtualBox to make even VS2008 faster. In any event, it's still notably faster than VS2008 and well worth the $44 I paid plus shipping, a total of $49 something. :-) It was also nice to see how easily I was able to get my code base working in such an old compiler with limited modern support. Just goes to show that I'm an old fashioned guy ... not just in that I like old John Deere tractors (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EE5mlnjB7s now that's what I'm talking about -- families working together on the family farm, communities formed, people helping people), but also that I like the older software too. :-) Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 16 05:01PM -0500 On 9/16/2014 4:25 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> first one, right? > No. > /Flibble We obviously skipped to the 150th human... The others died something akin to "The Fly" Or maybe a million humans simultaneously crossed the border from "other species" to human all at once with no remnants of "the fly", they others just went *poof* It's all magical. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 17 12:16AM +0200 On 16/09/14 21:46, Christopher Pisz wrote: > Your arguments are sound Mr Brown. Do you have links to the > single-celled to multi-celled experiments or any resources? I would be > interested and be forced to drop that point in the future. I am afraid I don't off hand - if I remember correctly, I read about it in a Norwegian science magazine. I'll try and have a little look on the web. > I also don't understand what you mean in the scientific laws do not > contradict that one, referring to chaos becoming order. Can you elaborate? The second law of thermodynamics basically says that entropy, or the disorder of a system, always increases within a closed system. It's why you can drop a cup on the floor and see it smash into pieces, but despite the reversibility of Newtonian mechanics, it will never re-assemble itself. But it turns out that there is an amazing amount of entropy in heat. You can bring order out of chaos, as long as you accept that something somewhere is going to get a little hotter - the "chaos" or entropy has been moved from the apparent disorder of the system as a whole, into heat entropy in some part of it (with the total entropy always increasing). This means the chaos of a petrol explosion can give ordered mechanical motion to your car (and the requirement for entropy to increase leads to a maximum limit of the efficiency of the engine). Or the chaos of a teenager's room can become ordered, but he will become hot in the process. Thus there is no problem with the universe ordering stars and galaxies from the chaos of the early quark-gluon plasma (actually, the real problem has been to explain where the first disorder came from), and there is no problem with early organic molecules arranging themselves into proto-cells (if the right molecules are in the right place at the time, in the right environment, and they get lucky). > I am now sparked by a spirit of interest more than that of argument. Marvellous! It's always good to learn new ideas. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 17 12:20AM +0200 On 16/09/14 20:35, Mr Flibble wrote: > I am making perfect sense mate: if Adam didn't exist then neither did > those that the OT claimed were descended from him including Abraham and > Moses: if Adam never existed then the entire OT is indeed false. Again, your logic is flawed. If Adam didn't exist, then Abraham and Moses cannot be descended from him - but that in no way implies that Abraham and Moses did not exist. The non-existence of a first man falsifies /some parts/ of the OT - but certainly not all of it. (There are many other parts that falsify themselves in other ways, and even more parts that have no historical basis for confirming them or categorically ruling them out, as well as bits where the concepts of true and false don't make sense.) |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 17 12:30AM +0200 On 16/09/14 22:47, Tobias Müller wrote: >> It isn't nonsense mate: humans evolved ergo there was no *first* human. > But if humans evolved from _other species_ there must have been a first > first one, right? The species transition is gradual. Although species changes are often fast in geological terms (most evolution is by very slow changes, punctuated by sudden hops caused by dramatic changes of environment or unusually effective gene mutations), they are still slow and take many generations. So the change between Homo Rhodesiensis to Homo Sapiens took thousands of generations. We went from H. Rhodesiensis, through H. Rhodesiensis with H. Sapiens traits, through H. Sapiens with H. Rhodesiensis traits, to modern H. Sapiens. We can get estimates (from fossil records along with DNA history) of when this change happened, and the changes were bigger and faster than during "slow" periods in our evolution. But it is impossible to draw a line and say /you/ are H. Sapiens, but your parents were H. Rhodesiensis. It's like looking at a rainbow. You can say that one bit is red, and another bit is orange, but you can't look at the blur between them and say /that/ bit there is the first red colour. |
| David Harmon <source@netcom.com>: Sep 16 12:17PM -0700 On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:25:11 -0700 (PDT) in comp.lang.c++, "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote, >It seems that for many arguing alone is the common theme. I'm not sure >the topic matters all that much. The topic is paramount. The whole controversy here stems from Robert Hutchings insistent off-topic posting, including this thread, and he has yet to post *anything* about C++. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 16 10:40AM +0200 On 15/09/14 21:35, Ian Collins wrote: >> No one uses "Arse" except old British guys who use British slang even >> when they know its stupid. Must be a British thing... > It's a not-American thing. Also, "arse" is not slang - it is the correct word. "ass", as used by Americans, /is/ slang - it does not come from the real English language word (meaning "donkey"), but is a made-up word to allow pseudo-polite Americans to swear while pretending that they are not swearing. It is in the same category as other hypocrisies such as "gosh", "darn", or "oh sugar". In this case, however, both "arse" and "ass" (using its real meaning as a word) are appropriate. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 16 09:38AM +0200 On 15/09/14 22:22, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > so on so long or to be explicitly cast by name). > Best regards, > Rick C. Hodgin This is all related to a more general point - C++ does not support designated initialisers that C introduced in C99. (gcc's extensions here are just a refinement of that.) If you ever get an answer from the standards folk, the usual reasoning is that C++ constructors provide a better system than C's designated initialisers, and thus you should use constructors. Of course, this argument is nonsense - constructors are more flexible, and better for some purposes, but take more effort to write, can't be used for compile-time initialisation (perhaps they can now with "constexpr"?), and are incompatible with C. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages, and people want both. The C++ standards folk really need to take a look at C11 and update their C compatibility to take advantage of the improvements in C since the schism. There is not much to do, but a few points would make a big difference - designated initialisers is, IMHO, the most important. And since gcc is quite happy with designated initialisers in C++, it seems there would be no problem adding it to the language. Initialising union members automatically by type is another matter. It might work okay in simple cases, but it could quickly get complicated and ambiguous, especially once classes with constructors got involved. Designated initialisers are conceptually simpler, more explicit, and more flexible. |
| "J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net>: Sep 14 09:12AM -0400 In article <18027e5b-7d91-4bc0-b420-df13b17e6ee6@googlegroups.com>, ootiib@hot.ee says... > 2) When engineer is working both harder and smarter then it results > with bit better than passable product. Most outstanding carrier of > that ideology is Apple and your sentence is lie there. But working hard and smart may often be percieved by those who do not understand "working smart" as slacking off. Like when you recgonize that you have gone stale on a problem and need to do something else to take your mind off of it for a while so you can come back with fresh insights. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment