| Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>: May 02 09:12PM +0100 > With C++ and Python gradually getting better, maybe there > will be some squeeze on C# and Java. I think Java is > more of a house of cards than C++. Why do you think Java will be faster than C#? They're both byte code languages after all. I also think that the ease of use of Java will have it around for a long time. It's harder to leak resources accidentally in Java. Andy |
| Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com>: May 02 08:42PM > I also think that the ease of use of Java will have it around for a long > time. It's harder to leak resources accidentally in Java. > Andy Java is c++ for dummies. |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: May 01 04:44PM -0500 On 5/1/2019 4:28 PM, David Brown wrote: > Please do drop C and C++ groups. I can't answer for prolog or lisp groups, as I do not follow these. But I note that everyone else in your threads - baring those like me who are complaining - has dropped the C and C++ groups. Thus all we see are endless > posts from you, apparently replying to yourself, and with no content of any interest to our groups. It may be that you have discovered some important result in formal systems, but we in the C and C++ groups are not interested. (If anyone from these > groups disagrees with me, please say so.) I used to talk about this on comp.theory and then comp.theory died: The Refutation of Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof is complete. This refutation applies to the other conventional (self-referential) Halting Problem proofs. This algorithm was completed December 13th 2018 7:00PM Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof (1993) with Turing Machines H and Ĥ. http://liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_318-319).pdf Every detail of the encoding of virtual machines implementing the Peter Linz H deciding halting for the Peter Linz input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ) is complete. The only step remaining is the C++ encoding of the UTM that executes these virtual machine descriptions. When this last step is complete I will provide the full execution trace of H actually deciding halting for input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ). The only reason that this is possible is a key undiscovered detail that no one noticed for 81 more than eight decades. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: May 02 12:00AM -0700 On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 18:56:40 UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: > Is this a second "Amine Moulay Ramdane"? > According to his manic posting-frequency he might be. No, each kook deviates from average people in unique manner. Their background and reasons of going crazy in that background are rather different. :) |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 02 09:19AM +0200 On 01/05/2019 23:44, peteolcott wrote: >> interested. (If anyone from these groups disagrees with me, please >> say so.) > I used to talk about this on comp.theory and then comp.theory died: Why am I not surprised? Posters like you kill groups. If you ever get as far as working on a C++ implementation and want to discuss coding details, come back here. Until then, please stay out of irrelevant groups. |
| leigh.v.johnston@googlemail.com: May 02 01:38AM -0700 On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:19:57 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > If you ever get as far as working on a C++ implementation and want to > discuss coding details, come back here. Until then, please stay out of > irrelevant groups. Says the guy who doesn't mind religious spam being posted to this group. /Leigh |
| guinness.tony@gmail.com: May 02 02:01AM -0700 On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 22:44:22 UTC+1, peteolcott wrote: > I used to talk about this on comp.theory and then comp.theory died: There's a serious hole in your logic system if it failed to infer the latter from the former. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 02 04:56PM +0200 >> discuss coding details, come back here. Until then, please stay out of >> irrelevant groups. > Says the guy who doesn't mind religious spam being posted to this group. I am sorry, but I think you have got people mixed up. I have never approved of spam - religious or otherwise. Nor do I like continuous junk posts (which are not spam - there is a difference) - that includes certain pointlessly repetitive religious posts, and it includes your own pointlessly repetitive posts. There is a difference between an /occasional/ off-topic discussion, which may be of interest to some people who happen to be in the group, and the kind of pantomime nonsense perpetrated by you and Rick. Yes, you are equally guilty. |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: May 02 09:58AM -0500 On 5/2/2019 2:19 AM, David Brown wrote: > Why am I not surprised? Posters like you kill groups. > If you ever get as far as working on a C++ implementation and want to discuss coding details, come back here. Until then, please stay out of irrelevant groups. I only come here because the more relevant groups died. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com>: May 02 07:26AM -0700 > users could contact your site via their build process > without having to go to your site and click anything > or copy/paste anything. This seems to be more a commercial/licensing approach than practical. For licensing, instead of compute the result on the cloud you could just check the license and generated everything locally. Something like this (generation on the cloud) could be used for top secret technology where you don't want to distribute the code even in binary form or if the installation or use of the binary forms were too complicated. For my case, everything is simple and free and web is a good option. I also have a C-source-to-source compiler where I could implement the switch case for strings and generate the code. How could (in terms of syntax) switch for strings be part of the language? Because pointer as also numbers I think the direct syntax is not possible. switch (psz) { case "A": break; } ? switch "" (psz) { case "A": break; } Some languages like C#, Swift and I guess Pascal have this feature. |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: May 02 09:18AM > and conclude that the line is not inside the foo namespace. I think > that for me, it would weaken the idea that the contents of the foo > namespace is related and belongs together. Usually it would be code like: void foo::fancyFunction() { int n = foo::bar(); ... } I think it's quite evident that both the function we are implementing here and "bar()" are from the same namespace. The latter prefix just makes it extra-clear that bar() is, indeed, from the same namespace and not somewhere else. If the "foo::" prefix were omitted, years later you could be reading that code and it might be unclear where exactly that "bar()" is from. If the function is so long that the name is like in the previous page, it might just as well be too long. Functions spanning several pages (by whichever editor size you are using) are probably hard to read anyway, and might benefit from a bit of refactoring. |
| 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