Sunday, January 17, 2016

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 15 updates in 4 topics

Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Jan 17 07:31AM

On Sat, 2016-01-16, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
...
> 5. UML Toolkit
...
> It looks like the 5th one, UML Toolkit, there's
> been a "UML 2 Toolkit" published subsequently.
 
The 1998 edition is what everyone at work used to have.
Probably not too bad.
 
> The book I have is probably kind of old.
 
Assuming anyone cares about UML 2.0, yes. I'm not so sure.
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Jan 17 01:40PM

On Sun, 2016-01-17, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
...
> Assuming anyone cares about UML 2.0, yes. I'm not so sure.
 
I should have written "I have no information on that". After the
Internet bubble burst in 2002 I went more into embedded programming,
and noone around me was into OOD (or C++ for that matter). If UML 2.0
was a big success elsewhere, I might not have heard about it.
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jan 17 06:49AM -0800

On Sunday, 17 January 2016 15:40:21 UTC+2, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> Internet bubble burst in 2002 I went more into embedded programming,
> and noone around me was into OOD (or C++ for that matter). If UML 2.0
> was a big success elsewhere, I might not have heard about it.
 
UML is fine in documentation to illustrate some complex behavior
sequence or relation between objects or types. Otherwise it can
become pointless and simple text is more comprehensive to most
people.
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Jan 17 09:54AM -0800

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 8:49:28 AM UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote:
> sequence or relation between objects or types. Otherwise it can
> become pointless and simple text is more comprehensive to most
> people.
 
I agree with that, but have been surprised to find that
UML books are so pricey. I checked a few of those that
I have and they still sell for a fair amount.
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jan 17 01:23PM -0800


> I agree with that, but have been surprised to find that
> UML books are so pricey. I checked a few of those that
> I have and they still sell for a fair amount.
 
UML diagrams can look decorative and convincing (or at least more so than
text) to clueless people. Such people have often deciding power about
project funding. Also sometimes various sales guys want to have some
diagrams from documentation for their power-point presentations. Skilled
engineer however may frown upon nonsense UML diagram so doing it all well
is complex art. ;)
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Jan 17 07:52AM

On Sat, 2016-01-16, Daniel wrote:
 
>> Wouldn't that have been a textbook example of optimization that isn't
>> premature?
 
> Indeed, but how to tell the difference? :-)
 
Isn't it quite easy in this case?
 
>> (Assuming the rather bad performance of iostreams in popular
>> implementations /is/ due to the interface design.)
 
> Would it have stayed this bad, this long, if it were not so?
 
That is indeed the main thing pointing to an inherent problem.
But I've never seen an actual analysis. Perhaps I should do one ...
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid>: Jan 17 09:58AM +0100

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:33:11 -0800 (PST), woodbrian77 wrote:
 
 
>> Religion is the root of all evil.
 
>According to the Bible, the love of money is the
>root of all kinds of evil.
 
the "root of all kinds of evil" is decide ourself what is good and
what is wrong,
whithout see the 10 commandaments and other rules and laws written in
Bible
 
Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Jan 17 07:56PM

> Only in your own mind Brian: everybody else, thanks mostly to your
> incoherent spam, couldn't give the slightest fuck about it sausages.
 
Don't cloffing swear, you shote-bag fusking pempslider.
JiiPee <no@notvalid.com>: Jan 17 02:52PM

On 16/01/2016 21:11, Öö Tiib wrote:
> http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/licensing.html For most needs LGPL is fine.
> If you want to have Qt under commercial license then these are available
> as well but such cost few thousands of euros.
 
But most of us we are doing commercial projects, I guess... this is not
my hobby only.
Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com>: Jan 17 11:25PM +0800

JiiPee wrote:
 
>> as well but such cost few thousands of euros.
 
> But most of us we are doing commercial projects, I guess... this is not
> my hobby only.
 
Even for commercial projects you can usually live with the LGPL, I do.
 
--
Reinhardt
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>: Jan 17 04:55PM

On 14/01/2016 20:49, Christopher Pisz wrote:
> Windows and back into a multibyte UTF8 string representation rather than
> using wide characters when Windows is expecting wide characters as soon
> as you make it a unicode project.
 
I like to toss my code at different compilers purely because they have
different error checking. One may spot UB where another doesn't. I may
never _run_ it on the other compiler's code - just getting a clean
compile is nice.
 
Sadly I often don't get the chance.
 
I've had the pain of upgrading a major code base just from one version
of MSVC to another. As it turned out all the things it moaned about were
worth fixing.
 
Andy
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jan 17 09:17AM -0800

On Sunday, 17 January 2016 16:55:21 UTC+2, JiiPee wrote:
> > as well but such cost few thousands of euros.
 
> But most of us we are doing commercial projects, I guess... this is not
> my hobby only.
 
So I have apparently to repeat what I wrote already above?
For most commercial projects usage of a library with LGPL is fine.
There are rather few commercial projects that for some odd reasons need
to modify public domain library code *AND* don't want to publish *THEIR*
modifications. For those on case of Qt there is option to pay few
thousand euros to Digia and then even that is legal.
Paul <pepstein5@gmail.com>: Jan 16 04:40PM -0800

Does anyone have any references on the topic of implementing finite state automata in C++? Thank you.
 
Paul
"K. Frank" <kfrank29.c@gmail.com>: Jan 16 06:34PM -0800

Hi Paul!
 
On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 7:41:27 PM UTC-5, Paul wrote:
> Does anyone have any references on the topic of implementing finite state automata in C++? Thank you.
 
There is lots of stuff.
 
Samek offers an interesting approach:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Practical-UML-Statecharts-Event-Driven-Programming/dp/0750687061/
 
http://www.state-machine.com/
 
Boost (being boost) offers two (count 'em, two) state-machine
libraries:
 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4275602/boost-statechart-vs-meta-state-machine
 
Unless you want a lot of the uml "statecharts" overkill,
it's pretty easy to roll your own, for example, along the
lines of Samek's basic implementation ideas (as well as in
many other ways).
 
> Paul
 
 
Happy State-Machine Hacking!
 
 
K. Frank
Paul <pepstein5@gmail.com>: Jan 17 02:35AM -0800

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 2:34:49 AM UTC, K. Frank wrote:
> lines of Samek's basic implementation ideas (as well as in
> many other ways).
 
> > Paul
 
Many thanks for these suggestions.
 
Paul
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.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)