- Why should a "c" programmer learn c++ ? (V2) - 12 Updates
- Are there any asm-instructions to support OOP - 2 Updates
- Cause error if integral parameter too large - 4 Updates
- Why should a "c" programmer learn c++ ? - 5 Updates
- neoGFX Design Studio - 1 Update
- Turn - 1 Update
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Sep 09 08:56PM -0500 On 9/9/2020 8:36 PM, Thiago Adams wrote: >> (3) std::string > To use these features correctly you also need to understand and use > Exceptions, namespaces and templates and a LOT more, like move semantics To use those features as simply augmentations to "c" thus increasing the quality and maintainability of what would otherwise be "c" code you need none of those things. There are many great "c" programmers that could easily become great c++ programmers if they were not burdened by inessential details. One week of skimming these three essentials in one's spare time and any "C" programmer could become a c++ programmer. The most important thing to know is C++ classes. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott |
| Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>: Sep 10 03:25AM +0100 > One week of skimming these three essentials in one's spare time and > any "C" programmer could become a c++ programmer. The most important > thing to know is C++ classes. Why does "C" get the scare quotes and C++ doesn't? -- Ben. |
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Sep 10 01:04AM -0500 On 9/9/2020 9:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> any "C" programmer could become a c++ programmer. The most important >> thing to know is C++ classes. > Why does "C" get the scare quotes and C++ doesn't? A "c" by itself looks like it may be a typo. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Sep 09 11:12PM -0700 On Thursday, 10 September 2020 09:05:00 UTC+3, olcott wrote: > >> thing to know is C++ classes. > > Why does "C" get the scare quotes and C++ doesn't? > A "c" by itself looks like it may be a typo. It is common typo, as the language is named C not c. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 10 08:54AM +0200 On 10/09/2020 08:04, olcott wrote: >>> thing to know is C++ classes. >> Why does "C" get the scare quotes and C++ doesn't? > A "c" by itself looks like it may be a typo. Try spelling it correctly - the language is called C, with a capital. (C++ also has a capital.) When posting in a C newsgroup, or even a C++ newsgroup, people will not misinterpret it. If you are writing about it in a different newsgroup or context where it might not be obvious what you mean, then referring to "the C programming language" is far better than "c". You may also like to refer to the particular version of the standards - C99, C11, etc. As to your original point, it is certainly possible for people to write in a language that is basically "C with simple classes", and some people find that gives them clearer and more maintainable code than they get with C alone due to better structuring and encapsulation. I think that is missing out a lot of the potential benefits of C++, and it certainly will not lead to someone becoming a "great C++ programmer". There is no doubt that the C++ language is big, and few if any programmers have need for all the features. But the subset that gives the most benefits varies enormously from programmer to programmer and task to task. |
| boltar@nuttyella.co.uk: Sep 10 09:50AM On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 01:04:31 -0500 >Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott Why do you put a copyright in your posts? Firstly they're not copyrightable as usenet is in the public domain and secondly who do you think is going to rip off your tedious waffle anyway? |
| Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com>: Sep 10 12:59PM +0300 boltar to Pete Olcott: > Why do you put a copyright in your posts? Firstly they're > not copyrightable as usenet is in the public domain [...] You are confusing content and medium. Any content is in principle copyrightable regardless of the medium that contains it. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived] |
| boltar@nuttyella.co.uk: Sep 10 10:22AM On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:59:30 +0300 >You are confusing content and medium. Any content is in >principle copyrightable regardless of the medium that >contains it. Wrong. All usenet providers will have a public domain clause in their terms and conditions because thats how usenet has worked since its inception. |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Sep 10 10:39AM >>contains it. > Wrong. All usenet providers will have a public domain clause in their terms > and conditions because thats how usenet has worked since its inception. Citation needed. I don't think a platform has the legal right to tell to its users "if you publish anything in this platform, it will be in the public domain", especially since most jurisdictions do not even support the concept of individuals publishing anything with no copyright. A company cannot remove copyright from a work (not its own, not other people's). (Yes, even if you say "this work of mine is in the Public Domain", in most jurisdictions that means jack squat. It will still be copyrighted, and "public domain" is not a valid legally-binding usage license. In these jurisdictions ever original work is automatically copyrighted and you cannot get rid of it, no matter what you do. It's copyrighted, period. The only thing you can do is to publish it under a copyright-based usage license that gives everybody the freedom to do with it whatever they want.) A company can claim that by publishing on their platform you automatically *transfer* your copyright to the company. How legally binding that is depends, but it's still *not* "public domain". It's simply a copyright transferral. A company cannot legally declare your work to be PD, because that's not how copyright law works. (Publishing under PD is recognized by most jurisdictions, but restricted to many/most publications made by the government and certain government sub-contractors. In most jurisdictions individuals and private companies do not have this "right". Their work is automatically and irrevocably copyrighted.) |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 10 02:08PM +0200 On 10/09/2020 11:59, Anton Shepelev wrote: > You are confusing content and medium. Any content is in > principle copyrightable regardless of the medium that > contains it. In fact, whatever you write on Usenet (and most other places) is implicitly copyrighted by you, unless there is some prior claim or explicit transfer of copyrights. It is certainly not "public domain" unless you say so explicitly. (At least, that is my understanding - IANAL.) So the real question is, why bother putting a copyright message on the post when it is already covered automatically? If someone feels that their messages are being abused - copied and used in different contexts, quoted by someone who does not follow the expected conventions, etc., - then perhaps it's easier to get legal help if the copyright is marked explicitly. But hopefully that is not something that is going to be a likely issue here! |
| Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>: Sep 10 08:21AM -0400 On 9/10/20 8:08 AM, David Brown wrote: > then perhaps it's easier to get legal help if the copyright is marked > explicitly. But hopefully that is not something that is going to be a > likely issue here! Yes, everything you produce, if classifiable as a creative work, is automatically under copyright protection, but some of those protections are easier to enforce if an explicit claim is made. On the other hand, because of the media being used, there are a lot of implied grants of use, and just asserting the automatic copyright won't change those. |
| Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com>: Sep 10 05:22PM +0300 boltar to Anton Shepelev: > Wrong. All usenet providers will have a public domain > clause in their terms and conditions because thats how > usenet has worked since its inception. And again, you do not say with regard to what content public domain is mentioend in the terms & conditions of Usenet provider. In fact, I don't think it is mentioned at all. Can you quote, for example, the relevant part of the terms of two popular Usenet servers? -- Eternal September: www.eternal-september.org AIOE: www.aioe.org -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived] |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Sep 10 07:15AM >> system call into the kernel and much of the overhead of a task switch to >> EVERY method call, and return. > Security always rules over performance. If this is a question of high-level software security, resistant to attempt to bypass the language-level public/private class restrictions by malicious code via runtime checks, then perhaps normal OOP is not the proper approach. |
| Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: Sep 10 07:19AM -0700 >> Those comments display as little knowledge about me as they do about >> security. > Scott Newman again, surely. I think comments like this one work against your desired goal of reducing the crank volume. |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Sep 10 09:01AM Suppose I have something like this: //--------------------------------------------------- #if SOME_CONDITION void func(std::uint64_t); #else void func(std::uint32_t); 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
|
No comments:
Post a Comment