- The CRTP for interfaces -- not so useful? - 5 Updates
- Brian Wood's C++ Middleware Writer Spam Advertising - 8 Updates
- TDD considered harmful - 5 Updates
- TDD can be useful even when it doesn't achieve what you want - 5 Updates
- "type-safe" functions - 1 Update
- Project Xnod is created - 1 Update
| Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com>: Feb 16 09:58AM -0300 On 02/11/2016 02:28 PM, K. Frank wrote: > CRTP to define interfaces? If not, do you think that > using the CRTP as a place to define an interface is > worth the hassle? If you want a real usage example of CRTP please see these 2 libraries from Microsoft: ATL (Active template library) and WTL (Windows Template Library). The last one is open source nowadays. They make heavy usage of CRTP in order to implement static 'virtual' dispatching. ATL: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/3ax346b7.aspx WTL: http://wtl.sourceforge.net/ Regards -- Cholo Lennon Bs.As. ARG |
| "K. Frank" <kfrank29.c@gmail.com>: Feb 16 06:40AM -0800 Hi Cholo! On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:58:22 AM UTC-5, Cholo Lennon wrote: > CRTP in order to implement static 'virtual' dispatching. > ATL: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/3ax346b7.aspx > WTL: http://wtl.sourceforge.net/ Could you give a short explanation of the usage of the CRTP in ATL and/or WTL? (Note, you've responded to my post about using the CRTP to define "pure" interfaces, but I also posted a companion question about the CRTP when there is "real code" in the base class -- which I understand to be the more common usage.) I drilled down some into your ATL link. I got as far as https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f7c98h7e.aspx ... > ATL COM Desktop Components > Concepts Window Classes > Implementing a Window > Message Handler Functions but didn't see anything that was obviously relevant. (The MSDN can be a bit inefficient to read at times.) Do ATL and/or WTL go beyond the CRTP structure I outlined in my two posts, or do they use those basic ideas, but in an obviously more substantive concrete setting? > Cholo Lennon > Bs.As. > ARG Thanks. K. Frank |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Feb 16 07:36PM +0100 On 2/16/2016 3:40 PM, K. Frank wrote: > Do ATL and/or WTL go beyond the CRTP structure I outlined > in my two posts, or do they use those basic ideas, but in > an obviously more substantive concrete setting? There's nothing really interesting to find. WTL was based on ATL so they're not really two different libraries. ATL used base-class-as-template-parameter to define a most derived class that implemented the COM IUnknown interface, that is, reference counting and interface access by id. I wouldn't really call it CRTP. There's a bit of TP, but the the R, for Recurring, does not match the designs in ATL/WTL. Cheers & hth., - Alf |
| Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com>: Feb 16 04:17PM -0300 On 02/16/2016 03:36 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: >> an obviously more substantive concrete setting? > There's nothing really interesting to find. WTL was based on ATL so > they're not really two different libraries. Beyond its relationship, they are two different libraries (at least in their final objective). ATS is for COM programming and WTL is for GUI programming (ATL windowing is rudimentary compared with WTL. The last one has abstractions for controls, dialogs, printings, ddx, support for message maps, etc) > I wouldn't really call it CRTP. > There's a bit of TP, but the the R, for Recurring, does not match the > designs in ATL/WTL. Well I disagree, just grep for "static_cast<T*>(this)" in both libraries... Regards -- Cholo Lennon Bs.As. ARG |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Feb 16 11:25AM -0800 On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 20:37:11 UTC+2, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > I wouldn't really call it CRTP. > There's a bit of TP, but the the R, for Recurring, does not match the > designs in ATL/WTL. Not always but some class templates in ATL and majority of class templates in WTL are CRTP and virtual functions are avoided. As contrast in MFC all cases where base class of library needs to call methods of derived class (by you or library) are handled with virtual functions. CWindowImpl: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/h4616bh2.aspx IOleControlImpl: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/a2w18t1x.aspx |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Feb 16 12:07AM On 15/02/2016 23:40, Jens Thoms Toerring wrote: > good it will get some good rankings in search engines and may > end up linked to by wikipedia after some time. It's a bit of > work, admittedly, but it's the honest way to go. He isn't listening: he is still vandalizing that page with his spam. He certainly is a stubborn cunt. /Flibble |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Feb 15 07:55PM -0500 On 2/15/2016 7:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > He isn't listening: he is still vandalizing that page with his spam. He > certainly is a stubborn cunt. > /Flibble Does it help to report his spam to wikipedia? I don't know - I've never seen a spammer so determined. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Feb 15 04:59PM -0800 On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 4:37:21 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote: |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Feb 15 08:13PM -0800 On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 5:40:36 PM UTC-6, Jens Thoms Toerring wrote: > not for you as the author to decide if it's important enough to > be mentioned, no matter how good or beneficial for others you > may consider it to be. It's up to a happy user to add it if I'm also a happy user. > (s)he feels it's important enough. Well, it supports automating the creation of serialization functions. The serialization library in Boost doesn't do that. It's also an on line approach. So most of the changes are made to the code generator and users don't have to patch their installations. In that sense it minimizes the amount of code that has to be downloaded by users. It's been on line since 2002. Back then the value of what I wrote above wasn't clear to some people, but I think it's increasingly obvious today. > except maybe when asked by someone else for details) that > mentions any of your work (or you personally) - even if you > feel the treatment to be wrong or unflattering. I'll make it clear that the user that's recommending it is also the author. > good it will get some good rankings in search engines and may > end up linked to by wikipedia after some time. It's a bit of > work, admittedly, but it's the honest way to go. What about the 16 lines of boring text about Java serialization on that Wikipedia page? Do you support that being reduced to 5 or 6 lines? Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust. http://webEbenezer.net |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Feb 16 10:09AM -0500 >> feel the treatment to be wrong or unflattering. > I'll make it clear that the user that's recommending > it is also the author. It's still spam. > What about the 16 lines of boring text about Java > serialization on that Wikipedia page? Do you support that > being reduced to 5 or 6 lines? Strawman argument. It has nothing to do with your spam. But then I guess it doesn't make any difference anyway since you can't seem to keep your site up. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Feb 15 10:42PM +0100 On 2/15/2016 8:32 PM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: > search that Brian's software is nothing widely known/applied. > Unfortunaly, I don't have much experience with Wikipedia's processes, > how do you call in an admin? I don't know. Wikipedia appears to have evolved to the kind of half-closed society where an unreasonable investment of time and effort is required just to get into it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serialization Looks clean now but I notice in the edit history Brian is really persistent about promoting his software there. As if there's no listing of C++ libraries anywhere, not even one automatically posted to the newsgroups every month. Cheers, - Alf |
| jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring): Feb 15 11:40PM > Sorry if you find it spam. I think it's a case > of "One man's trash is another man's treasure." If you add your own stuff to wikipedia it's clearly spam. It's not for you as the author to decide if it's important enough to be mentioned, no matter how good or beneficial for others you may consider it to be. It's up to a happy user to add it if (s)he feels it's important enough. If you want to get some exposure go and buy some advertisement space somewhere - mis- using wikipedia for that is spam as clearly as it gets - it ticks all the boxes. Never ever touch a page (or have any part in changing it, except maybe when asked by someone else for details) that mentions any of your work (or you personally) - even if you feel the treatment to be wrong or unflattering. What about writing an excellent article about serialization (that may mention your library in some form) that is helpful to others, and publish it on your own web site? If it's really good it will get some good rankings in search engines and may end up linked to by wikipedia after some time. It's a bit of work, admittedly, but it's the honest way to go. -- \ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ jt@toerring.de \__________________________ http://toerring.de |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Feb 16 05:25PM >> feel the treatment to be wrong or unflattering. > I'll make it clear that the user that's recommending > it is also the author. That will make absolutely no difference: myself and others will continue to remove your edits because your software is not notable enough to be in an encyclopaedia and what you are writing is simply spam promoting your software. /Flibble |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Feb 16 10:25AM +1300 Paavo Helde wrote: > (incremental) linking), so the TDD steps must inevitably be larger. The > upper limit is set by the abilities of the programmer - how large chunks > he can manage without "losing the track". My usual answer to that problem is "throw more hardware it"! My trip point for a hardware boost is usually around 30 for a full build... -- Ian Collins |
| Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Feb 15 10:40PM +0100 Op 15-Feb-16 om 10:34 PM schreef Paavo Helde: > And that's why there is also the refactoring step in TDD so that when > you have obtained some more insight after implementing cases 1, 2 and 3 > you are now (hopefully) able to rewrite them as "n+1". But why aren't I allowed to do that in the first place? > simpler approach which only works in limited cases. > I am certain there are people and projects where TDD is not useful, but > I am also sure there are people and projects where it makes sense. That I can totally agree on. But Uncle Bob doesn't seem to admit that there are *any* projects where TDD is not useful. Or am I misunderstanding him? Wouter |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Feb 15 11:45PM +0200 On 15.02.2016 23:33, Ian Collins wrote: >> My usual answer to that problem is "throw more hardware it"! My trip >> point for a hardware boost is usually around 30 for a full build... > .. 30 seconds .. The MSVC linker is single-threaded so adding more CPU cores would not help, and clock speeds are not doubling each 18 months any more unfortunately. Not that I am blaming the MSVC linker though, we should really split up that 100MB DLL behemoth. |
| Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>: Feb 15 11:11PM On 15/02/2016 21:33, Ian Collins wrote: >> My usual answer to that problem is "throw more hardware it"! My trip >> point for a hardware boost is usually around 30 for a full build... > .. 30 seconds .. My last employer but one our tests took a couple of weeks to run on the server farm. But then, we knew they weren't comprehensive ;) Andy |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Feb 16 01:40AM +0200 On 15.02.2016 23:40, Wouter van Ooijen wrote: >> you have obtained some more insight after implementing cases 1, 2 and 3 >> you are now (hopefully) able to rewrite them as "n+1". > But why aren't I allowed to do that in the first place? In my book, you can take as large pieces as you are comfortable with and as long as you are confident that all important functionality gets sufficiently covered by tests. If Uncle Bob feels himself comfortable with testing each one-line edit separately then that's his business. > That I can totally agree on. But Uncle Bob doesn't seem to admit that > there are *any* projects where TDD is not useful. Or am I > misunderstanding him? No idea, I haven't followed him much. What I do know is that TDD is a tool, not a goal, and that a tool can always be misused or overused. |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Feb 16 09:09AM > I am, and I am sure many others are, quite capable of creating > appropriate abstractions without using TDD. You are missing the point. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Feb 16 09:12AM > design/development method that pays attention to testability. (And on > top of that, any design method that pays attention to abstraction and > re-use). How many of those methods actually induce you to both increase the abstraction of your designs and create tests for your modules at the same time? Why this hate of TDD? I don't understand. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Feb 16 03:08AM -0800 On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 11:12:56 UTC+2, Juha Nieminen wrote: > abstraction of your designs and create tests for your modules at > the same time? > Why this hate of TDD? I don't understand. I think that it is like always when some sort of process, method, technique or tool is too inconvenient, badly supported, misapplied and/or overused somehow. To be more concrete: * They do not do not test units in isolation (typically because testing framework is weak). * They handwrite (or manually correct) lot of mocks, fakes and dummies (typically because testing framework is weak). * The tests look like cryptic garbage (typically because testing framework used has verbose and complex setup interface). * One test checks too several things so it is hard to say what it tests without using word "and" several times (typically because of one or more from previous issues). * TDD (as silver bullet tool and design process) is valued over individuals and interactions within organization. * Unit test code coverage (as the holy metric of quality) is valued over working software within organization. * and/or other such issues. These are called as strawmen but are likely real issues because It can take time, debates, work and effort to get corrected. Only few (one?) of such issues is plenty for someone to become toxic. |
| Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Feb 16 05:16PM +0100 Op 16-Feb-16 om 10:12 AM schreef Juha Nieminen: > abstraction of your designs and create tests for your modules at > the same time? > Why this hate of TDD? I don't understand. TDD is just a term/word/phrase, nothing to hate or love. What I don't like is the set of 3 rules. (And the implied 4'th rule, that someone who doesn't always use TDD is not a professional.) If that is different from TDD, please interpret my objections (or even hate) as directed to those 3 rules. But if those 3 rules are essential to TDD, yes, *then* I hate TDD. I have no objection to TDD as a suggestion of how to organise your work, alsongside other suggestions like (rapid) prototyping, waterfall (yes!), agile, scrum, peer programming, egoless programming, and a long list of others. As always, the job of an engineer is to choose the right tool for the job at hand. Wwouter van Ooijen |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Feb 15 09:49PM As a contrast to the recent "TDD is harmful" thread, I would like to recount something I thought of recently in regards to a situation where TDD doesn't actually achieve what you want, but can still make your code better regardless. Suppose you have a problem like this: You have made a small class that opens a file (for example an image file) and does something with it. One of the things you want to test is that the class actually ends up closing the file (at the latest when it's destroyed). How would you test this? Since you are TDD-conscious, mock objects come to you naturally. Therefore the solution seems to be clear: You have to make a mock object that behaves like a file handle. To do this, you have to change the class so that it takes a more abstract file handle than eg. a FILE* or a std::istream. Once this is done, you can easily create a test to make sure that your file-handling class ends up eventually closing the file (by creating a mock file handler object that makes this check and giving it to the class.) However, there's a problem here: How do we now test that this abstract file handle (which itself uses eg a FILE* or a std::istream) ends up closing the file (at the latest when it's destroyed)? We realize that all we have done is just transfer the problem to another class, and we have ended up in an ouroboros situation. How could we test this? Create yet *another* abstract file handle which we can mock? That wouldn't make much sense since we just did exactly that, and it didn't really help. We would just be in a vicious cycle. So TDD didn't actually help us solve the actual problem we were trying to solve. *However* TDD *did* help us, in a natural way, to make our original class better. That's because now it's more abstract and flexible. We have changed it from being hard-coded to use a standard file handle into being abstract, which makes it more flexible. (After all, it now supports other types of input for the data it needs to read. We can now make all kinds of abstract "file handle" objects that feed it data from whatever other resource that might not be a file.) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Feb 16 09:28AM +0100 On 2/16/2016 3:15 AM, Stefan Ram wrote: > else than an int-expression between the parens > (which could be »()«, »{}«, »[]«, or »<>«) and the > semantics are those of »::std::isalpha«? Yes, you can make it a template and use SFINAE like `std::enable_if` (or, shameless plug, [1]`cppx::If_`, which provides a more clean and more readable conventional "if-else" notation for the same). Using a template is a general solution to avoid various kinds of argument type decay. In particular it's a solution to the problem of providing overloads where one accepts pointer and the other accepts array. Cheers & hth., - Alf Notes: [1] <url: https://github.com/alf-p-steinbach/cppx/blob/plutonium/core_language_support/tmp/If_.hpp> |
| wij@totalbb.net.tw: Feb 15 09:44PM -0800 I am happy to announce that project Xnod is created. https://sourceforge.net/projects/systemnode/ Xnod tries to develop a more uniform language or scaffolding, or kind of program deployment to reduce efforts for nearly every programming tasks. Xnod is currently based on Xarg, and has to be a collabrated project. So, consider join this project in this initial stage helping ourselves by sharing your know-how. |
| 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