- Don't be fooled by cpp.sh - 8 Updates
- about inheritance - 11 Updates
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Dec 13 09:28PM -0800 Shalom, comp.lang.c++, I was just looking at the website cpp.sh (C++ shell) and the latest standard they have listed (as of December 2019) is 2014 C++. I'm here to tell you that on-line C++ is alive and well. My code generator requires 2017 C++ and has been updated hundreds of times since 2017. Imo the future of C++ is bright, especially with respect to on-line code generation. Please don't be fooled by cpp.sh and others like it. There are some fools imo here. Perhaps one of them has "blessed" us with cpp.sh. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - Enjoying programming again. https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards |
| boltar@nowhere.co.uk: Dec 14 09:23AM On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 21:28:01 -0800 (PST) >Please don't be fooled by cpp.sh and others like it. There >are some fools imo here. Perhaps one of them has "blessed" >us with cpp.sh. Who the hell cares about online C++ compilers? Anyone who uses C++ will already have a far superior compiler on their own machine so what purpose do they serve other than stroking the egos of the people writing them? |
| Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>: Dec 14 05:19PM > Who the hell cares about online C++ compilers? Anyone who uses C++ will > already have a far superior compiler on their own machine so what purpose > do they serve other than stroking the egos of the people writing them? I care. Just the other day I was testing some code across different compilers. The online compilers let me try half a dozen different compilers on my code fragment. I only have GCC installed on my machine. Andy |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Dec 14 09:54AM -0800 On Saturday, 14 December 2019 19:19:35 UTC+2, Vir Campestris wrote: > I care. Just the other day I was testing some code across different > compilers. The online compilers let me try half a dozen different > compilers on my code fragment. I only have GCC installed on my machine. With so complex and quickly evolving language like C++ it is good idea to have couple of different compilers installed plus some static analysis tools as well. When any of such clever tools (written by quite good programmers) become confused about your code then it is almost guaraneed that other person (or even you yourself few months later) will be even more confused about it. |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Dec 14 12:00PM -0800 On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 11:54:21 AM UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote: > With so complex and quickly evolving language like C++ it is good idea > to have couple of different compilers installed plus some static > analysis tools as well. It takes a few minutes to install one, and that's if everything goes well. The network usage from downloading is another factor. > good programmers) become confused about your code then it is almost > guaraneed that other person (or even you yourself few months later) > will be even more confused about it. Compilers aren't like human intelligence imo. When someone says compilers are smart I laugh. If they were smart, they would have transformed themselves into services 20 years ago. Have you heard of the biggest ball of twine in Minnesota? Weird Al wrote a song about it: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=weird+al+twine+ball&t=h_&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=Tcw326PJuDw This is a history of the ball from 2019: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=largest+ball+twine&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=JTGAJDdFsGw That's not going to transform itself either. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Dec 14 01:51PM -0800 > > analysis tools as well. > It takes a few minutes to install one, and that's if everything > goes well. The network usage from downloading is another factor. Installing consumes very little computer resources so we can do everything what we want while it installs. And the price of terabyte of storage is so low that there are next to no reasons to uninstall anything ever nowadays. > says compilers are smart I laugh. If they were smart, they > would have transformed themselves into services 20 years > ago. People who write compiler make it to translate the code as wisely as they would do it themselves. As the compiler writers are usually far smarter than its users ... like you ... that laughter is foolish. Your last sentence is just demagogy boasting online services. > This is a history of the ball from 2019: > https://duckduckgo.com/?q=largest+ball+twine&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=JTGAJDdFsGw > That's not going to transform itself either. http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/feeling-stupid |
| Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com>: Dec 14 10:17PM > good programmers) become confused about your code then it is almost > guaraneed that other person (or even you yourself few months later) > will be even more confused about it. C++ can be quite clean language, written. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit... U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala |
| Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com>: Dec 14 10:19PM > everything what we want while it installs. And the price of terabyte of > storage is so low that there are next to no reasons to uninstall > anything ever nowadays. I have gcc and clang and when I want icpp. What others are there that are half usable? MS VC but that one is Windows only... > far smarter than its users ... like you ... that laughter is > foolish. Your last sentence is just demagogy boasting online > services. Given that compilers are black boxes to some, I agree. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit... U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Dec 13 07:44PM -0500 fir writes: > im a c man and dislike c++, i remember i was learning c++ a bot about year > 2001 or so and If you disliked C++ in 2001, you will definitely hate it today. C++ today is about 3-5 bigger than it was back then, in terms of sheer complexity and difficulties. Behold the complete trainwreck that the C++ tag on stackoverflow.com. It's an amazing sight to behold, almost every day. So, save yourself the trouble, and forget about learning C++. It won't work for you. But thanks for stopping by, and have a nice day. > what you need to desctibe it and make it searchable. accesible is rather a > tag, then you may and its ok to do give some relations to this tags itself > but those tahs like are by nature multidimensional and cross itself i mean I could not make any heads or tails of this stream of consciousness, in the surrounding paragraphs. Whatever you're suffering from, I hope you feel better someday. |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Dec 14 10:55AM +0200 On 14.12.2019 2:44, Sam wrote: > I could not make any heads or tails of this stream of consciousness, in > the surrounding paragraphs. Whatever you're suffering from, I hope you > feel better someday. I suspect he might have just discovered that one can classify things in different ways. And by some reason he thinks this is somehow relevant for C++ inheritance, probably because his only knowledge of C++ comes from a crappy tutorial which had some silly animal-dog-duck example. In C++ inheritance is a special coding technique which might be useful in some specific scenarios (btw, classification of things is not such a scenario), but it's just one tool among many. I find it ironic that while OP finds C language superior because it does not have inheritance, my last usage of inheritance was directly related to a C program (Python). I coded a Python extension module defining an extension Python type. The Python manuals say that an extension Python type must be defined by a struct which has the "base class" PyObject in the beginning. There are some nifty macros for doing that: typedef struct { PyObject_HEAD /* Type-specific fields go here. */ } CustomObject; which expands to typedef struct { PyObject ob_base; /* Type-specific fields go here. */ } CustomObject; However, doing it this way would mean to litter my code with nasty reinterpret_casts because the PyObject and CustomObject are unrelated types, but one needs to cast between pointers to them at every step. So I used C++ inheritance instead: struct CustomObject : PyObject { /* Type-specific fields go here. */ }; Voila! No cast to PyObject needed any more, and a well-defined static_cast instead of error-prone reinterpret_cast in the other direction. I guess the bottom line is that languages lacking inheritance are bound to reinvent it in ugly ways. |
| fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com>: Dec 14 03:01AM -0800 W dniu sobota, 14 grudnia 2019 01:45:01 UTC+1 użytkownik Sam napisał: > I could not make any heads or tails of this stream of consciousness, in the > surrounding paragraphs. Whatever you're suffering from, I hope you feel > better someday. youre not understending this becouse you got weak head, and yopur hopes on me acknowledge that what i know over 100% now generally such posts only purpose informing me that authors are idiots acknowledge it 3d time im may inform you in exchange im totally indeferrent for idiots of that type |
| fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com>: Dec 14 03:08AM -0800 W dniu sobota, 14 grudnia 2019 09:55:35 UTC+1 użytkownik Paavo Helde napisał: > scenario), but it's just one tool among many. > I find it ironic that while OP finds C language superior because it does > not have inheritance, this is becouse c has not such kind of non-logically-complete trash like here there are also no 'different ways of classifications' here (in that post), simply that tree-like classification/organisation is not complete thus is flawed and kinda nonsense (it dont applies only to c++ but for all other languages using it the same 1-tree-like way) (more proper way is what i described some crossed-multi-tree way (based on tags and its relations), though maybe even some extension over it may be even better (im not sure)) |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Dec 14 08:34AM -0500 Paavo Helde writes: > program (Python). I coded a Python extension module defining an extension > Python type. The Python manuals say that an extension Python type must be > defined by a struct which has the "base class" PyObject in the beginning. Not just Python. Every substantial C library ends up reinventing inheritance in its own way. People's Exhibit A: GTK. |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Dec 14 08:37AM -0500 fir writes: > youre not understending this becouse you got weak head, and yopur hopes on > me acknowledge that what i know over 100% > now "Over 100%" of nothing is still nothing, according to basic algebra. > generally such posts only purpose informing me that authors are idiots > acknowledge it 3d time > im may inform you in exchange im totally indeferrent for idiots of that type And least all the "idiots of that type" can find the SHIFT key on their keyboard, know when to use it, and the various appropriate punctuations symbols. At least we can agree on that? |
| fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com>: Dec 14 08:19AM -0800 W dniu sobota, 14 grudnia 2019 14:37:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Sam napisał: > And least all the "idiots of that type" can find the SHIFT key on their > keyboard, know when to use it, and the various appropriate punctuations > symbols. At least we can agree on that? shure not visibly and extremly stupid fella, dont want to wasty my time with 1q 50 random moron oer the net |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Dec 14 11:55AM -0500 fir writes: > shure not visibly and extremly stupid fella, dont want to wasty my time with > 1q 50 random moron oer the net I hear there's a remake of "The Holy Grail" in the works. You should audition for the role of The Black Knight. You'll be a natural. |
| boltar@nowhere.co.uk: Dec 14 05:22PM On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 11:55:40 -0500 >The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996. >To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet >software that supports modern Internet standards. Blah blah blah. 31 lines of noise to wrap 5 lines of ascii text which doesn't even require MIME. And why sign your posts anyway? Who on earth do you think will ever check? |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Dec 14 10:02AM -0800 > Blah blah blah. 31 lines of noise to wrap 5 lines of ascii text which doesn't > even require MIME. And why sign your posts anyway? Who on earth do you think > will ever check? You seem to imagine that he does lot of work to sign posts and that it takes lot of bit crunching to verify the signatures. Hmm. Have you ever heard of such a thing like "software"? |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Dec 14 02:24PM -0500 Öö Tiib writes: > You seem to imagine that he does lot of work to sign posts and that it takes > lot of bit crunching to verify the signatures. Hmm. Have you ever heard of > such a thing like "software"? He/she/it also seems to believe that everyone sees the canned boilerplate, and not only the ones who, for some inexplicable reason, use prehistoric, ancient, pre-MIME software. Maybe he/she/it uses telnet to download messages, and read them? |
| 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