| 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. |
- Framework Qt with c++ - 6 Updates
- First to learn C if learning C++? - 11 Updates
- Allocating dynamically two large memory blocks next to each other. - 3 Updates
- Remissership of karvy Stock Broking - 1 Update
- Unified Call Syntax - 1 Update
- sleep and sleep_for on Linux - 2 Updates
- What are your C++ tools for development? - 1 Update
| Andrea <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.COM>: Oct 19 12:55PM +0200 I saw this framework and it seems very interesting (I have done some tests with the Qt Creator editor and are positively surprised). Does anyone use it? Opinions? -- |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 19 05:16AM -0700 Qt's licensing model can be undesirable for some. It is a solid framework though. Have you tried wxCrafter? Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Oct 19 08:17AM -0400 On 10/19/2014 6:55 AM, Andrea wrote: > I saw this framework and it seems very interesting (I have done some > tests with the Qt Creator editor and are positively surprised). > Does anyone use it? Opinions? My opinion is that some folks use it. Some companies even use it in the foundation of their commercial products. I think you can find some testimonials on the web site... V -- I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 19 05:19AM -0700 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WxWidgets Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Andrea <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.COM>: Oct 19 03:22PM +0200 19/10/2014 14:19, Rick C. Hodgin write: > http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WxWidgets > Best regards, > Rick C. Hodgin Thanks for the reply. Maybe I'm wrong, but WxWidgets it only for the GUI. Qt can be used for the database, file system etc... Now I'm testing class for tcp socket and it's not complicated. For now, my vote is positive, but I wanted to know an opinion from people with more experience than me :) -- |
| Andrea <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.COM>: Oct 19 03:31PM +0200 On 19/10/2014 14:17, Victor Bazarov wrote: > My opinion is that some folks use it. Some companies even use it in the > foundation of their commercial products. I think you can find some > testimonials on the web site... Thank for the reply. I am follow this group for a few months, and I never saw discussion about Qt. I thought that is not used or that it's a bad product... and I wanted to know an opinion from /skilled/ people in this group before lose my time with this framework :) -- |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 18 05:10PM -0700 On Sunday, 19 October 2014 00:39:00 UTC+3, Emanuel Berg wrote: > ++i (instead of i++) looks backward and it is > confusing as it doesn't serve a clear purpose (or > any?). No difference either way as separate sentence for 'int' so how can it be confusing? In general '++X' means "increase X". 'X++' means "increase X but return what it was before". So '++X' might be what we want to do on most cases and 'X++' feels like for special, more complex cases. We pick 'X++' because it was that way in for loops of the books written by wise guys that we did read as novices ... there are no other reasons. > You can put the declaration of i within the for loop > if you pass either of -std=c99, -std=gnu99, -std=c11 > or -std=gnu11 to gcc. Lot of people are forced to write C that is compatible with Microsoft C compiler that AFAIK does not let to declare that 'i' there. It feels like Microsoft has huge pile of legacy C somewhere that no one of them can maintain and so the decades pass but they can't modernize their compiler, otherwise some curse comes out and half of their world blows up. |
| Luca Risolia <luca.risolia@linux-projects.org>: Oct 19 03:15AM +0200 Il 11/10/2014 13:24, JiiPee ha scritto: > What I said is that first learn proper C++ way, then after that C... so > the other way around :). But I guess one can learn both at the same time > when just being careful understanding that not using C ways in C++ code. If you want to be able to appreciate and write elegant code, start to learn C++ from the beginning, don't waste your time on C. |
| Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se>: Oct 19 03:21AM +0200 > The context is that someone wants to learn C++ -- > surely no promotion is needed? OK, if someone wants to learn C++ he or she should do C++. > mention object orientation -- why? It was popular in > the 1990s, but today noone forces you to do it, not > in C++ at least. I'm old-school! :) But I agree you can do everything with C++. It doesn't have to be Haskell or Lisp or SML to be functional programming. But to do OO in C or some SQL-like data-oriented programming in C++ (or C) will just be a lot of unmotivated work. But I don't see much you could do in C that you couldn't do in C++. And that's logical as C++ is an extention of C. > safety, exceptions and the standard library: good C > programs have to make do with arrays or home-grown > linked lists, and manual memory management. No, good programs solve a problem - the intended, whole problem, and none other. Many programs that run every day and have done so for ages aren't what any of us would call good programs if we were to look at the source. Just compile the Linux kernel and you get hundreds of warnings from the compiler. Take a look at the source code and you might immediately dislike the indentation style and naming conventions and... whatever. It doesn't matter to you unless you are writing it, in what case of course you want a program whose source conforms with your views and style. > program, but rarely see a need for run-time > polymorphism, abstract interfaces, design patterns > and so on. YMMV. No, that is CS schoolbook stuff that will only make your head spin. In practice old tricks are the best. -- underground experts united |
| Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se>: Oct 19 03:33AM +0200 > But it is not a proper subset, and neither is it > "huge". I used that word informally, and I don't think it will be worthwhile to somehow do a weighted quantification to find out, but I'm still rather confident that some techno-historian one thousand years or so from now will come to the conclusion that C was a huge part of C++ both in terms of technology and as regards the human aspects of it. > ... so one would need to learn the usage of basic > looping constructs twice All the better! > inside function also has unnessecary and harmful > restrictions in C, so learning the C way first is > actually harmful when learning C++. No, the more you learn, the better. Manny Pacquiao and the Klitschko brothers are all boxing champions. What sport did they start with? Kickboxing! (or Muay Thai) So, training kickboxing didn't make them worse boxers even though in boxing you are not allowed to kick. They went on to become boxing champions nonetheless. Learning is never harmful, it is always positive *for everything*! Don't worry about it! -- underground experts united |
| "J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net>: Oct 15 03:05AM -0400 In article <XnsA3C754D1FD1A3myfirstnameosapriee@216.196.109.131>, myfirstname@osa.pri.ee says... > correct as the minilanguage is not type-safe). All these aspects are > cured in C++ thanks to the features which are not OO-related: RAII, > function overloading and templates. You seem to be conflating the existence of a particular kind of object in the language with being an object oriented language. If you work hard enough you can make something that works like an object in assembly language, but that doesn't make assembly language object oriented. An object oriented language is one which has facilities for creating new kinds of object and their associated methods and properties. Does C have these other than doing it by brute force and awfulness? |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 15 10:26AM +0200 On 15/10/14 09:05, J. Clarke wrote: > An object oriented language is one which has facilities for creating new > kinds of object and their associated methods and properties. Does C > have these other than doing it by brute force and awfulness? Paavo did not claim that C was an object oriented language - he claimed that snippets like the ones he gave are as much "object oriented" in C and C++. His point (I believe) is that /neither/ code snippet makes use of real OO coding - they just make use of an object. It is not until you are using more powerful features of classes, such as inheritance and polymorphism, that the term "object oriented" becomes relevant. And yes, C /does/ support object oriented development. It is certainly easy to make use of objects in C, as shown by Paavo's snippets. But C++ makes OO development easier and more efficient for the developer, more efficient at run-time, and has it as an integrated part of its standard library - /that's/ what makes C++ an "object oriented language". |
| "J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net>: Oct 18 11:53PM -0400 In article <8ef2fcad-5949-4ea8-94f6-25f436c823b7@googlegroups.com>, ootiib@hot.ee says... > > or -std=gnu11 to gcc. > Lot of people are forced to write C that is compatible with Microsoft C > compiler that AFAIK does not let to declare that 'i' there. Where does one obtain this "Microsoft C compiler"? The only Microsoft compiler I am aware of that is commonly available, current, and accepts C code is the Visual Studio C++ compiler which accepts that syntax just fine unless you expelicitly set it to accept C rather than C++ code. > maintain and so the decades pass but they can't modernize their > compiler, otherwise some curse comes out and half of their world blows > up. Huh? If that was an issue then all that would be needed was an appropriate command line option. |
| Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se>: Oct 19 06:25AM +0200 > size(&str) - it is not object oriented programming. > You could get the same effect in C by adding nothing > more than function overloading. Well then, what is your definition of OO? The one I like the best is the coupling of data and the algorithms that modify that same data. Which is the case here. It doesn't really matter if that is implemented as syntactic sugar or not. OO is all about interfaces anyway. (Well, all good programming is, I would argue.) -- underground experts united |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Oct 19 02:27AM -0500 Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> wrote in > Well then, what is your definition of OO? The one I > like the best is the coupling of data and the > algorithms that modify that same data. Yes, but in this example this is done by the implementors of std::basic_string, not by the user (the end programmer). The program does not magically turn into OO style by using a std::string variable instead of a char array. Zero knowledge about OO is needed for using a std::string variable, it's just slightly different calling syntax. > case here. It doesn't really matter if that is > implemented as syntactic sugar or not. OO is all about > interfaces anyway. This somewhat contradicts your previous claim that OO is all about coupling of data and algorithms working on the same data. These both sound more like implementation details, not directly interface related. |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Oct 19 03:41AM -0500 Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> wrote in > will come to the conclusion that C was a huge part of > C++ both in terms of technology and as regards the > human aspects of it. I very much doubt it, because even nowadays I think no expert would agree with you. I do not consider myself a true expert, but I have learned enough C++ to see that the common C subset is constituting a quite small part of it (maybe 5% or 10% if I were forced to give a number). I hope I learn more in the future, and that will make the C subset part even smaller because it is effectively frozen; new features are added in the C++ part. Some new features in the C language like variable size arrays are not going to be adopted into C++, which means that the languages will diverge more in the future and the common subset of them will effectively diminish yet more. Historically C has been very important for C++, and nowadays it's very important because many library and OS interfaces are defined in C. This does not mean that C and C++ languages have a large common subset, it just means they can be interfaced very well. >> looping constructs twice > All the better! > the more you learn, the better. Sure, but this is not the topic of this thread. The question posed by OP was: "should one first learn C before learning C++?" Cheers Paavo |
| Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk>: Oct 19 12:46PM +0200 On 2014-10-19 06:25, Emanuel Berg wrote: > implemented as syntactic sugar or not. OO is all about > interfaces anyway. (Well, all good programming is, I > would argue.) I think the confusion here is that you call the "C with classes" subset of C++ "Object oriented" when some of us see it as merely "Object based". :-) A small but significant difference, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-based_programming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming Bo Persson |
| pkoniusz@gmail.com: Oct 18 05:17PM -0700 Dear Stefan and Robert. I don't mind if I get this behaviour on a specific platform only. Portability is not an issue at this point at all. I use linux with the following kernel. 3.11.10-100.fc18.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Dec 2 20:28:38 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Any chance I'd get the behaviour of realloc that Stefan talks about on this platform? Seems like 'memory collapse' would do the job, or some way to force allocation of two memory blocks to be exactly next to each other in the first place. Another option is to dump all data on a hard drive and reload and shrink on the fly, though, this would be too slow. The main reason for operating on such large continuous blocks is speed. |
| Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>: Oct 19 02:59AM +0200 On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:17:00 -0700 (PDT) > Seems like 'memory collapse' would do the job, or some way to force > allocation of two memory blocks to be exactly next to each other in > the first place. Try to allocate with mmap directly. -- Manjaro all the way! http://manjaro.org/ |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Oct 19 02:34AM -0500 pkoniusz@gmail.com wrote in > Dear Stefan and Robert. > I don't mind if I get this behaviour on a specific platform only. > Portability is not an issue at this point at all. I use linux with the On Linux, use mmap() and mremap(). The latter seems like a direct hit for your concerns. Cheers Paavo |
| alakh92@gmail.com: Oct 18 09:38PM -0700 How can i get remissership. My name is alakh bharti, i am from jaipur. My contact no. Is 9261653094. |
| "Jouko Koski" <joukokoskispam101@netti.fi>: Oct 15 11:14AM +0300 "Juha Nieminen" wrote: > So are you saying it wouldn't work with functions inside namespaces > (such as fseek)? Would something stop current argument-dependend lookup working? -- Jouko |
| "J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net>: Oct 15 05:04AM -0400 In article <87eguaw206.fsf@debian.uxu>, embe8573@student.uu.se says... > but instead possibly be setup as an interrupt. > Right now I don't know what to do except that I'm not > happy with polling. It sounds like what you want to do is set up the performance counters to trigger an interrupt when a threshold number of LLC misses occurs. I don't know of a facility in Linux that supports this--you may have to create or modify an interrupt handler. You can download the docs for the processors from http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/architectures- software-developer-manuals.html and you might want to check into "perf", which doesn't seem to provide an api for you to use to hook the interrupt but may have pieces that you can modify to suit your need. |
| "J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net>: Oct 15 05:04AM -0400 In article <87eguaw206.fsf@debian.uxu>, embe8573@student.uu.se says... > but instead possibly be setup as an interrupt. > Right now I don't know what to do except that I'm not > happy with polling. Forgot to mention, a simpler approach might might be to just turn off LLC read-caching on the "BE" core, which will slow it down but also reduce interference with the crtical core. This is also discussed in the Intel software manual <http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/architectures- software-developer-manuals.html> |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 15 10:48AM +0200 On 15/10/14 03:04, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > be joined together into a single component, such as with the number 999.99 > being converted to [999][decimal point][99], and then being converted into > a single [number:999.99] form. I call those "natural groupings". Fair enough, the variable names are meaningful for your code. But that still does not mean it makes sense to declare all your variables at the start of the function. >> using "i" as a loop variable. But good programming practice > Never use "i" for a local variable name. That's my advice. I use > something like "lnI" for [local][numeric][i]. I hope you won't feel insulted if I ignore your advice. I have seen many pieces of code with such conventions, and many sets of coding rules that insisted upon them - I have never seen any code in which such things did not make code uglier and harder to follow. > I think it's good practice. All variables are located at one place > and I don't have to go hunting (reading) line-by-line to try to find > where this one's defined, and that one's defined. Why single out variable definition for such special treatment? How variables are used is just as important as their definitions - yet you are happy to spread their usage around in the code. It is a common idea that putting the definitions in one place somehow makes things clearer, but that is not the case. Remember, the convention of putting definitions at the start of a function is due to limitations on compiler technology in the good old days of K&R - it was never picked as an active choice or suggested as a good idea. >> write it the way you want. All anyone else can do is give you >> suggestions. > It goes both ways. Absolutely true. Even the most experienced developers can sometimes learn things from other people's habits and conventions. But after due consideration of the points above, I've rejected your conventions :-) (On a more positive note, your code is laid out neatly and consistently, which is a good habit.) > being an issue to worry about it. > But, here is the output from GCC (I had to remove the line after lfHertz4 > which bypasses the warning to get it to generate that warning): The way to deal with warnings is to understand them and use them as hints to correct or improve your code. It is very rare that I accept /any/ warnings on final code - and I use a lot more of gcc's warnings than you do here (I start with "-Wall -Wextra" and add others). In this particular case, I think your code would be clearer and your warnings would disappear (or reveal real errors) if you used local variables properly. You should also remove the "-Wno-" flags - any warnings hidden by those flags are almost certainly coding errors. And you should use separate compilation for your modules - don't lump everything together in one huge combined file. Modular programming exists for a reason - it gives you clearer, neater code, better static error checking, better code re-use, and easier development. I think that's probably enough advice for today. |
| 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