- Idiots (reprise) - 6 Updates
- what do people use for automated testing of C++ Windows app ? - 6 Updates
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 26 10:23PM +0100 Some of the idiotic things that regulars of this newsgroup still, presumably, continue to advocate: 1) Don't use the unsigned integral types despite the fact that the C++ standard library is full of their use. 2) Don't use abstract interfaces (as they advocate against using public virtual functions). 3) Never derive from standard containers despite the fact that interface augmentation is useful. 4) Don't use reference members despite the fact that not all classes need to be Assignable. 5) Use the memory allocated by std::vector<POD>::reserve() without constructing elements by bypassing std::vector's modification functions (e.g. push_back). Use this newsgroup with caution. /Flibble |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Aug 27 09:27AM +1200 On 08/27/16 09:23 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > constructing elements by bypassing std::vector's modification functions > (e.g. push_back). > Use this newsgroup with caution. Examples? I don't recall anyone here advocating any of the above. -- Ian |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 26 10:35PM +0100 On 26/08/2016 22:27, Ian Collins wrote: >> (e.g. push_back). >> Use this newsgroup with caution. > Examples? I don't recall anyone here advocating any of the above. Ask Alf. /Flibble |
| Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Aug 26 11:50PM +0200 > 2) Don't use abstract interfaces (as they advocate against using public > virtual functions). This one I don't understand. What is the problem with avoiding public virtual functions? Wouter "objects? No thanks!" van Ooijen |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Aug 26 07:19PM -0400 On 8/26/2016 5:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > (e.g. push_back). > Use this newsgroup with caution. > /Flibble Only a crap programmer would make statements like this. You're right - use this newsgroup with caution. There are way too many crap programmers promoting crap programming practices. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Aug 26 04:26PM -0700 On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 5:23:09 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > presumably, continue to advocate: > 3) Never derive from standard containers despite the fact that interface > augmentation is useful. For what reason would you want to derive from standard containers? Interface augmentation? Use free functions. > 4) Don't use reference members despite the fact that not all classes > need to be Assignable. You don't need to hold reference variables and lose assignability, you can always do, e.g. class buffered_ostream { std::ostream* os_ptr_; public: buffered_ostream(std::ostream& os) : os_ptr_(std::addressof(os)) Daniel |
| Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Aug 26 07:29PM +0100 > throwing an exception for invalid user input is simply wrong: invalid > user input is an error condition which typically causes some modal > process to be cancelled and is handled perfectly using exceptions. It's also a categorical error. Gracefully handling (or not handling) an error is an outcome. Giving the user a helpful message about how to proceed is an outcome. Throwing an exception is not an outcome, it's a mechanism. It's a method for getting from the point-of-error to the point-at-which-the-error-is-handled. Throwing an exception on invalid input is not an alternative to alerting the user about invalid input, or gracefully handling . It's simply one mechanism by which those outcomes can be achieved. Whether its the best mechanism, of course, depends on the nature of the application, the nature of the input, and the nature of the user. |
| legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Aug 26 04:52PM [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> spake the secret code >is ours that we have been writing since 1987. Our calculation >engine dates back to the early 1960s. > https://www.winsim.com/screenshots.html (man, I need to update these !) Yum, chemical engineering. I love it! -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com> |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 26 07:57PM +0100 On 26/08/2016 19:29, Gareth Owen wrote: > mechanism by which those outcomes can be achieved. Whether its the best > mechanism, of course, depends on the nature of the application, the > nature of the input, and the nature of the user. Great description of the issue: I'm sure Stuckle will disagree and call us both trolls! :D /Flibble |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Aug 26 03:46PM -0400 On 8/26/2016 2:57 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > Great description of the issue: I'm sure Stuckle will disagree and call > us both trolls! :D > /Flibble Here are some other quotes from other experts in C++: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1744070/why-should-exceptions-be-used-conservatively From the first answer (#87): "For example, wrong user input does not count as an exception because you expect this to happen and ready for that." http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19696442/how-to-catch-invalid-input-in-c Again, from the first answer (#4): "I recommend not to use the exception facilities in IOStreams! Input errors are normal and exceptions are for, well, exceptional errors." I can find other examples, also. But I know you'll continue to write crappy code. As for Ian's stack unwinding not being slower: http://www.boost.org/community/error_handling.html Under "Guidelines": " Because actually handling an exception is likely to be significantly slower than executing mainline code, ..." I can find other similar statements, also. But what's the use? Crappy programmers will continue to write crappy code. And trolls will continue to be trolls. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 26 09:50PM +0100 On 26/08/2016 20:46, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > I can find other similar statements, also. But what's the use? Crappy > programmers will continue to write crappy code. And trolls will > continue to be trolls. A contributing factor to your fractal wrongness seems to be your inability to tell a good source from a bad source, a good quote from a bad quote, a good website from a bad website, an expert and someone you think is an expert. I am not sure how one would go about correcting this personality trait. /Flibble |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Aug 26 07:22PM -0400 On 8/26/2016 4:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > think is an expert. I am not sure how one would go about correcting > this personality trait. > /Flibble Yes, I know the difference. Anyone who disagrees with your crap practices is a "bad source" or a "bad quote", and anyone who agrees with your crap is a "good source" or a "good quote". The personality trait correction is in YOU. But you are too bull-headed to learn and too stoopid to realize how wrong you are. Each of those quotes is from a widely recognized expert in C++ - which you are definitely NOT. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| 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