| Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com>: Nov 19 08:04AM > Note that this has nothing to do with liking or disliking this > language. Although, apparently, this state is the result of quite many > people liking it. C++ is pretty good professional tool. I can finish jobs on time :P -- current job title: senior software engineer skills: c++,c,rust,go,nim,haskell... 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>: Nov 19 08:04AM > At the lower levels, I'm pretty sure there is more C code than C++ > code. > Daniel C code is in C++ code ;) -- current job title: senior software engineer skills: c++,c,rust,go,nim,haskell... 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>: Nov 19 08:06AM > demo. I highly doubt that it had any C++ in it since the first CFront > was started in 1982. There was not a commercial release of C++ until > 1985. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B C++ took of after 1998, I really doubt it was use for something seriously (besides GUI) before that... -- current job title: senior software engineer skills: c++,c,rust,go,nim,haskell... 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>: Nov 19 08:08AM > toolset. It was still QuickC in start of nineties IIRC. The tools and > compilers of Watcom and Borland were preferred by many for DOS and > Windows back then. I remember quikC for DOS it was plain C? Borland Turbo was also weak. Until 1998 C++ was bah... -- current job title: senior software engineer skills: c++,c,rust,go,nim,haskell... 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 |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Nov 19 03:12AM -0800 On Thursday, 19 November 2020 at 10:08:27 UTC+2, Melzzzzz wrote: > > Windows back then. > I remember quikC for DOS it was plain C? Borland Turbo was also weak. > Until 1998 C++ was bah... There was some kind of C++ compiler in QuickC but it was weird. MS changed the name to Visual C++ when it started to support 32 bit ... 1993 I think. It all felt just a bit like hobby about like Rust is now. Indeed 1998 it was all standardized and Microsoft caught up others with its Visual C++ 6.0 that was solid product. |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Nov 19 12:29PM +0100 >> Daniel > C code is in C++ code ;) Most thinks you can do in C work the same in C++, but not everything. And most things you do in C are used to be done in a different way in C++ when you program paradigmatically. |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Nov 19 01:15PM +0100 On 19.11.2020 12:12, Öö Tiib wrote: > It all felt just a bit like hobby about like Rust is now. > Indeed 1998 it was all standardized and Microsoft caught up others with > its Visual C++ 6.0 that was solid product. Visual C++ 6.0 was pre-standard. Microsoft didn't get half up to speed until 2003 with Visual Studio.NET, as I recall. - Alf |
| James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>: Nov 19 09:43AM -0500 On 11/19/20 3:08 AM, Melzzzzz wrote: ... > I remember quikC for DOS it was plain C? Borland Turbo was also weak. > Until 1998 C++ was bah... Because the last proper word of that sentence is "was", I'm not sure what you're actually trying to say. As a result, the following comment might or might not be relevant: C++ was a well-established and fairly popular language long before it first got standardized in 1998. |
| Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com>: Nov 19 05:15PM > what you're actually trying to say. As a result, the following comment > might or might not be relevant: C++ was a well-established and fairly > popular language long before it first got standardized in 1998. It was popular, but useless. -- current job title: senior software engineer skills: c++,c,rust,go,nim,haskell... 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 |
| James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>: Nov 19 01:23PM -0500 On 11/19/20 12:15 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On 2020-11-19, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: ... >> might or might not be relevant: C++ was a well-established and fairly >> popular language long before it first got standardized in 1998. > It was popular, but useless. It was frequently used, and for serious software, which is inconsistent with it being useless. I'm curious - why do you think it was useless? It had all of the useful features of C90, which at the time was one of the most widely used programming languages, and you can write C++ code that uses only those features, so I don't see how it could have been any less useful than C90. Also, what is the basis for your claim that it "took off" after standardization? The closest think I'm aware of to relevant objective evidence is the Tiobe index (despite it's many flaws), which doesn't go back that far. If all you have is anecdotal evidence, that might say a lot more about you than it does about C++. My own experience (which is certainly only anecdotal), is that standardization improved the usefulness and popularity of the language somewhat, but not to the radical extent that you imply. |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Nov 19 07:33PM >> It was popular, but useless. >It was frequently used, and for serious software, which is inconsistent >with it being useless. Indeed, we wrote a distributed Unix operating system in C++ from 1989 to 1997 for a massivly parallel computer. |
| legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Nov 19 08:47PM [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> spake the secret code >C++ took of after 1998, I really doubt it was use for something >seriously (besides GUI) before that... You are wrong. C++ was used for plenty of stuff. I know because I was one of the people doing it. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com> |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Nov 19 02:41PM >> At least if you want to do it in-place. [...] > Writing in C, it took me 14 lines of code. Of course it might > end up being longer in C++. And I'm sure you can do it in 2 lines of code in Haskell. The length of the implementation is not the point. The point is the implementation itself. *How* do you sort the array in-place, when you have another array of pointers where each pointer is located in the position where the object it's pointing to needs to go? Suppose the first pointer points to the 10th element in the original array. So you need to move the 10th element to the first position. But the first position in the original array already has an element which is not yet in its proper position. You would need to move the first element of the original array to its correct position first. How? (And even if you were to find out where it should go, also in that position there will be an element that needs to be moved to its correct position first, and so on.) Care to share the algorithm instead of bragging about how many lines of code of C you can implement it with? |
| Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>: Nov 19 10:05AM -0500 On 11/19/20 9:41 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > element that needs to be moved to its correct position first, and so on.) > Care to share the algorithm instead of bragging about how many lines of > code of C you can implement it with? The simplest method moves every element twice. You buld a new array in the sorted order using your table of pointers, and then copy it back. A more complicated method is start at the first element, move it to a temporay location, then follow the cycle moving each the object that goes into that location into it, then follow with the newly open location (and mark the sorting array as that move having been done). When you finally get to the location that first element wanted to go into it, you put it in place, and look for the first eleent that needs to move again. This is more complicated, but only needs one temp location and one additional move per cycle in the sort list. |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Nov 18 07:08PM -0800 On 11/11/2020 3:57 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > You can't predict a future random event, so you can't predict the > random-influenced machine, so you can't construct an unsolvable case for > it. For some reason, this reminds me of trying to predict if a point in the Mandelbrot set escapes or not. |
| 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