- "Why I don't spend time with Modern C++ anymore" by Henrique Bucher - 18 Updates
- C++ Middleware Writer - 1 Update
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 29 09:16PM -0400 On 5/29/2016 11:23 AM, David Brown wrote: > I agree entirely - but it is a good measure of "big". You are the one > keen to claim that mainframe programs are so much bigger than anything > else. No, it isn't even a measurement of "big". > important than lines of code in total in the sources. And some code is > more complex than others, and of course there are many other factors. > You might have noticed that I have already mentioned this. Not at all. There are many more important factors which determine compile time than lines of code. But when none of your programs are more then five lines long, I can see why you think that. > numbers conveniently available. However, the disk usage given in my > reference below also includes non-compilable files, such as graphics > resources. It is a measurement used by people who don't know any better. It is not considered very important by experts. > My reference, which I really hope you will view as reliable and > accurate, is: > <https://sources.debian.net/stats/> Yes, but that is not the whole story. Sorry. > languages, and code in Perl, Python, or Bash will not be compilable. You > can see figures further down that page detailing the breakdown by > language - approximately 445 MLoC of C, and 290 MLoC of C++. Gee, let's see. It includes a number of different programming languages. But it also contains a number of different platforms-dependent code. You don't compiler ARM modules for an Intel platform, for instance. And there's a fair amount of assembler code in there. This also includes comments, code split across multiple lines, lines with single left or right braces on them, and a bunch of other things. Finally, it's not all one program. No one has everything in the repository loaded on their machine. Your numbers are as bogus as you are. > bigger than 1.1 GLoC. Note that your claim was for "one or a few huge > programs" - unlike the Debian code, which is obviously spread across a > great many programs. For someone not being fussy about exact numbers, you sure do quote a lot of them. > during compilation, I/O speed is not critical, it does not matter how > fast the I/O speed is on your build machine as long as it can get files > on and off the disk fast enough to keep the processors busy. Once again you have shown a distinctly limited knowledge of much of anything. No, you have no idea how mainframes work. You don't even understand the principles. This is just another example. > sizes in the mainframe world, I'll believe them. But your claims, with > the total lack of any kind of links or references, are not worth the > pixels they are written on. Fine. I really don't give a damn what you're limited knowledge will allow you to believe. After all, "Hello World" is a big program to you. So is LibreOffice. So much for your "experience". But I also know you'll argue until the day you die instead of admitting you are wrong - as you have repeatedly shown here and in c.l.c. >> care what an idiot like you thinks about my reputation. > It is quite obvious that you don't care what /anyone/ thinks of your > reputation here in Usenet. I care what knowledgeable people think of my reputation. I don't care what an idiot like you thinks. You aren't worth it. >> And in the mainframe world, someone only writing a few lines a week >> would not be employed for long. Maybe that's why you can't find a job. > People who write a few lines of code a week do not work on mainframes. No, they are productive. No wonder you have so much trouble finding work. > I wonder why you ever bother posting in these newsgroups at all. Did > you get kicked out of your mythical private discussion groups of "real" > programmers? You really are funny. I'd feel sorry for you if you weren't so unwilling to admit when you are wrong. There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance can be cured. But you are beyond stupidity. And no, we still have a good group going. But I like usenet because there are intelligent people on it, and I don't want new programmers to get wrong ideas from the likes of you. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: May 30 06:27AM > Another troll post. Ah, the ultimate form of concession. Whenever someone disagrees with you, just accuse them of "trolling". What a great argument. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: May 30 06:31AM >> every single C++ programmer. > Excuse me but given that any C++ programmer must compile his/her code > sometime, it SURELY affects EVERY SINGLE C++ PROGRAMMER. WTF are you talking about? Where exactly did I say that *compiling* the program is the issue? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: May 30 06:34AM > It's a huge problem for a large number of programmers. Just because it > isn't for YOU does not mean it's not important to OTHERS. YOU ARE NOT > THE WHOLE WORLD. "You haven't worked on very big projects, then. I've seen compiles take overnight on a mainframe." So, tell me, how many C++ programmers develop "very big projects" that "take overnight on a mainframe" to compile? In percents, that is. Again: If you want to change your programming language in your humongous project, be my guest. But don't be telling people that it's a problem for *all* C++ programmers, because it isn't. That's just a big fat lie. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- |
| Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: May 30 08:35AM +0200 Am 30.05.16 um 08:27 schrieb Juha Nieminen: >> Another troll post. > Ah, the ultimate form of concession. Whenever someone disagrees with you, > just accuse them of "trolling". What a great argument. No, it's self-awareness. What is trolling? Posting controverse opinions, insulting people as "too stooopid to understand their standpoint", ignoring facts etc. See the pattern? He still has to practice. Well-trained trolls have a much higher response-per-troll-post ratio, i.e. they don't need to react that often to keep it going. Christian |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 30 08:52AM +0200 On 30/05/16 03:16, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > And no, we still have a good group going. But I like usenet because > there are intelligent people on it, and I don't want new programmers to > get wrong ideas from the likes of you. I fully agree that there are many intelligent people on Usenet, including many in c.l.c++ and c.l.c. But more important than mere intelligence, there are many here who are helpful, friendly, honest, experienced, and interested in sharing knowledge, learning new things, and engaging in friendly banter. They don't always agree on everything, but are happy to disagree and discuss in an adult manner (except on topics of swearing, religion, and sausages - but no one's perfect). Those are the people who you have, almost without exception, labelled as "stoopid trolls" and "pigs who can't sing". It seems you like Usenet because it gives you an opportunity to insult people. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: May 30 01:10AM -0700 On Monday, 30 May 2016 04:16:50 UTC+3, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > keen to claim that mainframe programs are so much bigger than anything > > else. > No, it isn't even a measurement of "big". A bald assertion of denial? > > more complex than others, and of course there are many other factors. > > You might have noticed that I have already mentioned this. > Not at all. A bald assertion of denial? > There are many more important factors which determine > compile time than lines of code. Some indefinite mysterious "factors"? > But when none of your programs are > more then five lines long, I can see why you think that. Some patronizing ad hominem? > > reference below also includes non-compilable files, such as graphics > > resources. > It is a measurement used by people who don't know any better. Another patronizing insult? > It is not considered very important by experts. A bald, groundless assertion of denial? > > accurate, is: > > <https://sources.debian.net/stats/> > Yes, but that is not the whole story. Sorry. A bald assertion of denial? > platforms-dependent code. You don't compiler ARM modules for an Intel > platform, for instance. And there's a fair amount of assembler code in > there. Finally only place in post that indicates some connection with subject not just mechanical denial or insult. That however is irrelevant red herring without even slightest attempt of quantifying the alleged effect of it. > This also includes comments, code split across multiple lines, lines > with single left or right braces on them, and a bunch of other things. Red herring continues. Are you really wanting to say that stripping comments will anyhow affect order of magnitude of code base size? What code base is that? > Finally, it's not all one program. No one has everything in the > repository loaded on their machine. Fighting with straw man you built yourself? > Your numbers are as bogus as you are. Patronizing insult. > > great many programs. > For someone not being fussy about exact numbers, you sure do quote a lot > of them. Totally unfair tu quoque? No one can compete with indefiniteness, baldness and groundlessness of your postings, Jerry. > > on and off the disk fast enough to keep the processors busy. > Once again you have shown a distinctly limited knowledge of much of > anything. Patronizing, groundless insult? > No, you have no idea how mainframes work. Patronizing, groundless insult? > You don't even understand the principles. Patronizing, groundless insult? > This is just another example. It is unclear even, WTF you are talking about here. > Fine. I really don't give a damn what you're limited knowledge will > allow you to believe. After all, "Hello World" is a big program to you. > So is LibreOffice. Total patronizing bullshit nonsense? Not even wrong, just grotesque? > So much for your "experience". But I also know you'll argue until the > day you die instead of admitting you are wrong - as you have repeatedly > shown here and in c.l.c. Direct, outright lie? > > reputation here in Usenet. > I care what knowledgeable people think of my reputation. I don't care > what an idiot like you thinks. You aren't worth it. You have certainly high skill of posting lot of empty bullshit. Hopefully it entertains you. > >> would not be employed for long. Maybe that's why you can't find a job. > > People who write a few lines of code a week do not work on mainframes. > No, they are productive. No wonder you have so much trouble finding work. :D You are apparently mirroring your own issues to others. Sad. > And no, we still have a good group going. But I like usenet because > there are intelligent people on it, and I don't want new programmers to > get wrong ideas from the likes of you. I replied to the post because it was so devoid of any sparks indicating consciousness that it somewhat felt like Turing test. Are you bot, Jerry Stuckle? Someone just wrote a program that pretends being total asshole, idiot and troll? |
| Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: May 30 11:08AM +0100 >> How unbiased do you think it is? > So you now claim that Facebook (and by association the likes of Intel, > Microsoft and Google) are lying about an open project? Reality has an anti-Jerry bias. |
| Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: May 30 11:10AM +0100 > overnight on a mainframe." > So, tell me, how many C++ programmers develop "very big projects" that > "take overnight on a mainframe" to compile? In percents, that is. And more importantly, if those "very big projects" were to be written in C, say, would they cease to take a very long time to compile? |
| jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>: May 30 02:12PM +0200 Le 30/05/2016 à 08:31, Juha Nieminen a écrit : > WTF are you talking about? Where exactly did I say that *compiling* the > program is the issue? > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- You said: >>> someone complains about C++, the "long compile times" argument is >>> brought up, like it were some kind of crucial core flaw that affects >>> every single C++ programmer. Maybe I forgot my english but for me that is clear. |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 30 10:28AM -0400 On 5/30/2016 2:34 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > project, be my guest. But don't be telling people that it's a problem > for *all* C++ programmers, because it isn't. That's just a big fat lie. > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- Just because you don't doesn't mean it's not important. But then most programmers develop programs bigger than "Hello World". And many of us work on a project basis, where every minute spent compiling is lost income. Others work on an hourly basis, where every minute spent compiling is lost productivity. And I never said it was a problem for *all* C++ programmers. But *YOU* said it was not a problem for ANY C++ programmers. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 30 10:29AM -0400 On 5/30/2016 2:27 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Ah, the ultimate form of concession. Whenever someone disagrees with you, > just accuse them of "trolling". What a great argument. > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- Nope, just when they are trolling. Like yours here. But I know I'm trying to teach the pig to sing. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 30 10:34AM -0400 On 5/30/2016 2:35 AM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: > response-per-troll-post ratio, i.e. they don't need to react that often > to keep it going. > Christian Wrong, Christian. Trolling is twisting facts and statements to make it seem like someone said something else. It is also rejecting something without even examining it and trying to understand it. And there are several people here do perform both. Some have even admitted they are trolling. Calling someone "too stoopid to understand..." is just that. It's something I have observed repeatedly here. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 30 10:37AM -0400 On 5/30/2016 2:52 AM, David Brown wrote: > "stoopid trolls" and "pigs who can't sing". > It seems you like Usenet because it gives you an opportunity to insult > people. No, there are others here who try to understand, attempt to carry on intelligent conversations and truly try to be helpful. But then there are those who are so insecure they would rather try to prove someone else wrong than admit they may be wrong. They don't try to understand - they just take the opposite position no matter what. If someone said the sun rises in the east, they would claim it rises in the west. Those are the stoopid trolls and the pigs who can't sing. I'm sorry you have such issues. But they're not *MY* problem. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 30 10:52AM -0400 On 5/30/2016 4:10 AM, Öö Tiib wrote: >>> else. >> No, it isn't even a measurement of "big". > A bald assertion of denial? The truth - known by *real* experts in the field. But those who *think* they are experts keep quoting it as the final word. >>> You might have noticed that I have already mentioned this. >> Not at all. > A bald assertion of denial? The truth - known by *real* experts in the field. But those who *think* they are experts keep quoting it as the final word. >> There are many more important factors which determine >> compile time than lines of code. > Some indefinite mysterious "factors"? Code complexity is the main one. In languages like C++, template complexity and instantiation is another one. When using other tools like some databases, the need to preprocess the code (ahead of the C++ preprocessor) takes time. A whole bunch of things. >> But when none of your programs are >> more then five lines long, I can see why you think that. > Some patronizing ad hominem? Just the truth, as indicated by previous posts. > Another patronizing insult? >> It is not considered very important by experts. > A bald, groundless assertion of denial? Just the truth. >>> <https://sources.debian.net/stats/> >> Yes, but that is not the whole story. Sorry. > A bald assertion of denial? Just the truth. > not just mechanical denial or insult. That however is irrelevant red > herring without even slightest attempt of quantifying the alleged > effect of it. That's because I'm tired of having to repeat myself to people with the inability to understand simple statements. And every bit of it is 100% relevant as a reply to the post. But you are too stoopid to see even that simple concept. > Red herring continues. Are you really wanting to say that stripping > comments will anyhow affect order of magnitude of code base size? What > code base is that? ROFLAMO! Once again you show your inability to understand a simple concept. Either that or you are arguing just to argue. I'm not sure which, but I suspect the former. >> Finally, it's not all one program. No one has everything in the >> repository loaded on their machine. > Fighting with straw man you built yourself? Just responding to the post. Something you seem incapable of understanding. >> Your numbers are as bogus as you are. > Patronizing insult. Just the truth, as repeatedly proven by his own statements. >> of them. > Totally unfair tu quoque? No one can compete with indefiniteness, baldness > and groundlessness of your postings, Jerry. Sorry, wrong again. First he cites numbers, then claims he's not fussy about them. It doesn't work. >> Once again you have shown a distinctly limited knowledge of much of >> anything. > Patronizing, groundless insult? Just the truth, as repeatedly proven by his own statements. >> No, you have no idea how mainframes work. > Patronizing, groundless insult? Just the truth, as repeatedly proven by his own statements. >> You don't even understand the principles. > Patronizing, groundless insult? Just the truth, as repeatedly proven by his own statements. >> This is just another example. > It is unclear even, WTF you are talking about here. Nope. It would take someone with a modicum of intelligence to understand anything in this discussion. Something you once again prove you do not have. >> allow you to believe. After all, "Hello World" is a big program to you. >> So is LibreOffice. > Total patronizing bullshit nonsense? Not even wrong, just grotesque? Just the truth. >> day you die instead of admitting you are wrong - as you have repeatedly >> shown here and in c.l.c. > Direct, outright lie? Just the truth, as repeatedly proven by his own statements. >> what an idiot like you thinks. You aren't worth it. > You have certainly high skill of posting lot of empty bullshit. Hopefully > it entertains you. You certainly have no skills for understanding simple concepts. But this is the total truth. And just FYI, I hold you in even lower esteem than David. This whole post of yours is nothing but trolling. >>> People who write a few lines of code a week do not work on mainframes. >> No, they are productive. No wonder you have so much trouble finding work. > :D You are apparently mirroring your own issues to others. Sad. Not at all. I have plenty of work. And unlike you, mine is real *programming* work. Not digging ditches or washing dishes. > consciousness that it somewhat felt like Turing test. Are you bot, Jerry > Stuckle? Someone just wrote a program that pretends being total asshole, > idiot and troll? You replied because you are a stoopid troll, as you have repeatedly shown. And it's exactly what I would expect coming from you. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| JiiPee <no@notvalid.com>: May 30 08:08PM +0100 On 30/05/2016 15:28, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > compiling is lost productivity. > And I never said it was a problem for *all* C++ programmers. But *YOU* > said it was not a problem for ANY C++ programmers. I guess one question is that how many percentage faster other languages compile the same project (done with same structures)? Also , I do not think we should only think on factor (how quickly is compiled). We should take into consideration ALL factors, like how good the langauge is... how long it takes to develop the code, how easy is to maintain the code etc etc. Compiling is only on factor in regards to things taking time. How much faster other languages compile the same project? |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 30 06:21PM -0400 On 5/30/2016 3:08 PM, JiiPee wrote: > maintain the code etc etc. Compiling is only on factor in regards to > things taking time. > How much faster other languages compile the same project? It makes no difference what other languages do. They are not being used. And yes, compiling is one factor. But it is an important one because it is wasted programmer time. How good the language is is pretty unimportant, also. What IS important is how good the programmer is. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| JiiPee <no@notvalid.com>: May 30 11:43PM +0100 On 30/05/2016 23:21, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > It makes no difference what other languages do. They are not being > used. And yes, compiling is one factor. But it is an important one > because it is wasted programmer time. I dont think nobody disagrees. But as I said, Microsoft cannot do everything... they have limited budject I think. so they chose what is more important and how many it affects. Thats how the C++ commitea also thinks I know. > How good the language is is pretty unimportant, also. What IS important > is how good the programmer is. in a way true. but on the other hand, if your statement is the only truth, then that would mean that it does not matter if we use 90 s C++ or C++11/14. But I think there is an essential difference as C++11 is much safer etc. So your code becomes less risky with better language, I think. So it does matter, at least somewhat. |
| Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: May 30 11:01PM +0100 On Sun, 29 May 2016 09:56:42 -0700 (PDT) woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote: [snip] > people who support boost::any being added to the > standard? IMO adding "any" to the standard was > another mistake. I'd like to see it removed. Since you are the one who thinks it is OK to make regular posting to this newsgroup about things which have nothing to do with C++, you are better equipped than me to say what people such as you who "prefer anything goes" want to have added to the standard. However, this seems like another of your weird misdirection postings. I cannot see how any lack of respect for the purposes of this newsgroup that you or others have, has anything to do with whether there should be a variant class added to the standard. |
| 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