- Is rust going to replace C++ - 9 Updates
| "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net>: Dec 04 03:50PM -0500 On 12/04/2017 03:36 PM, Chris Vine wrote: >> Op 04-Dec-17 om 0:09 schreef guinness.tony@gmail.com: >>> On Sunday, 3 December 2017 19:27:35 UTC, woodb...@gmail.com >>> wrote: ... >> fucking asshole, keep spamming different newsgroups > Technically speaking I think guinness.tony is correct, in that "he is a > fucking asshole" is profane but not swearing. I'm curious - what definition of swearing do you use which excludes those words? Wiktionary defines swearing as the "use of offensive language", which makes it a highly subjective concept - it depends entirely upon what language you consider to be offensive. However, there's certainly a fairly large number of people who do consider those words offensive. They are being used in this context solely because he quite reasonably expects the target of those words to consider them offensive. He's certainly not using those words for their literal meaning. |
| bartc <bc@freeuk.com>: Dec 04 08:56PM On 04/12/2017 19:45, Chris Vine wrote: > pleasing that is has got rid of the distinction in the ALGOL languages > between expressions and statements - almost everything evaluates to > something. That wasn't the case in Algol68 where everything is a 'unit', and every unit returns a value even it's just 'void' - including loops. I used that model (for my home-made languages) for quite a few years, but eventually dropped it. Because having such a distinction allows more errors to be detected. In that syntax, both of these would be valid units: a = b; # test equality a := b; # assignment But the first is mostly likely an error. An error that would be easily detected if the expression 'a = b' wasn't allowed as a statement. (C and C++ have the same problem with writing 'a == b' as a statement, although extra compiler checks can warn about that. But it's a less likely error to make. There writing 'a = b' instead 'a == b' in an expression is more problematic.) -- bartc |
| Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Dec 04 09:06PM On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:50:23 -0500 [snip] > because he quite reasonably expects the target of those words to > consider them offensive. He's certainly not using those words for > their literal meaning. The biblical injunction against swearing, which is what religious extremists like to attach themselves to (by name transference brought about by language evolution) is concerned with oath-taking. In terms of the ten commandments, this is about the third commandment in the Septuagint (in some versions of the bible the first and second commandments are elided in which case this becomes the second): "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". The original and still proper meaning of the verb "to swear" is to take an oath. If you go to court you swear an oath to tell the truth. If you want to take this further please go off line. It is inappropriate to go into this in further detail in this newsgroup. |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Dec 04 11:13PM +0200 On 4.12.2017 10:10, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Some of them have succeeded on their own (like Java and C#), others > have simply faded to obscurity. None have succeeded in replacing C++ > so far. Somehow I doubt that will change this time either. Agreed. C++ is a multi-paradigm language. Actually what it resembles more is a whole suite of different languages, for which it provides a consistent and zero overhead integration. One can write a program in any of those sublanguages or more commonly in some convenient mix of those. It is essential that one of those languages is bare-metal C, and it is essential it can be mixed with others with zero overhead. Anything which could replace C++ needs to support all those languages/paradigms and add some new goodies on the top, so the result would be even more complex and hairy than the current C++. IOW the replacement would not be better than C++, in the opinion of people who want to replace it. Meanwhile the people who do not want to replace C++ are busy adding yet more paradigms into the mix, like metaclasses, thus making the task of C++ replacers even more difficult. Cheers Paavo |
| Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid>: Dec 04 10:21PM +0100 Op 04-Dec-17 om 9:37 schreef David Brown: > Brian and Rick are on crusades, with such blind, arrogant > self-righteousness that they don't see that they are totally > counter-productive. Either don't see or don't really care. My guess is that Brian and Rick just do it in the hope to score points with their imaginary friend and are not expecting that doing the same thing over and over again will yield different results. I might give those guys too much credit though... |
| Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Dec 04 09:21PM On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:44:25 +0100 Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: [snip] > much more import factors to consider when choosing a programming > language for a project. This makes hard for new programming languages > to replace well established programming languages. Those are good observations, and I agree with you. The thing that might push rust over the edge is that it offers a reasonable solution to the difficulty many programmers find with concurrency. As I said though, it might fail. Time will tell. The fact that C++ and C are not pure is not a significant problem to me. I am not overwhelmed by Haskell, I don't like lazy evaluation, and I am not convinced by the work-arounds used in pure languages for the fact that we live in a universe where mutability happens and any program which produces a result is impure. I think rust offers decent, and possibly better, solutions for that. Again time will tell. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Dec 04 10:25PM +0100 On 04/12/17 21:41, James R. Kuyper wrote: > reasonably does not want to quote it, either. However, he should at > least have quoted it in explicitly redacted form, so people would have > some idea what he was talking about. As someone who objects to such language, Brian should have kept quite - he knows fine well that every one of his "Please don't swear" posts provokes numerous new posts with swearing. By the definition attributed to Einstein, this is insane behaviour by Brian. |
| Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>: Dec 04 10:32PM >> Is rust going to replace C++? The world seems want to stay in C++ > I think it is the only new language around which stands a chance, and > even then it might fail. It seems to be a seriously nice language, <snip> > pleasing that is has got rid of the distinction in the ALGOL languages > between expressions and statements - almost everything evaluates to > something. I think that characterisation is a little off in that the last of Algols (68) took a very similar view. If *was* at the heart of Algol 60, and *that* Algol version inspired whole host of languages that make a similar distinction, but many others borrowed from the more flexible Algol-68. C's assignment expression are probably Algol 68 inspired (and they are even more similar in C++ where the value is a reference). <snip> -- Ben. |
| Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>: Dec 04 11:26PM >> something. > I think that characterisation is a little off in that the last of Algols > (68) took a very similar view. If *was* at the heart of Algol 60, and Bad typo: "It (this distinction) was..." -- Ben. |
| 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