Monday, December 28, 2020

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 17 updates in 3 topics

spuddy@isnotyourbuddy.co.uk: Dec 28 10:29AM

On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 10:50:53 -0800 (PST)
>I dislike C++17 for number of reasons. None of those trash language
>changes were needed for library changes added ... so I can't blame
>Microsoft there.
 
IMO C++ is in danger of disappearing up its own backside like Perl with too
many core languages updates and deprecations and too many ways to do the same
fundamental thing. The more complex you make a language the less people will
be willing to learn it and the less that learn it the rarer it becomes until
it becomes legacy like Cobol. Do we really want that for C++? Google, Apple
and the Rust team have realised this and made their Go, Swift and Rust clear
and simple, but it seems the C++ committee still haven't.
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Dec 28 11:56AM

> with too many core languages updates and deprecations and too many
> ways to do the same fundamental thing. The more complex you make a
> language the less people will be willing to learn it
 
Or, the more it will attract people who are more interested in playing
with novel language features than in Getting Things Done. Which may be
even worse.
 
> legacy like Cobol. Do we really want that for C++? Google, Apple and
> the Rust team have realised this and made their Go, Swift and Rust
> clear and simple, but it seems the C++ committee still haven't.
 
Two complaints:
 
- "still": the C++ committee didn't do anything weird to the language
for the first twenty years of standardization.
 
- Python and Java were advertised as clean and simple, too. I doubt
Go, Swift and Rust will stay that way for long. Unless people stop
using them.
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
"daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Dec 28 05:57AM -0800

> it becomes legacy like Cobol. Do we really want that for C++? Google, Apple
> and the Rust team have realised this and made their Go, Swift and Rust clear
> and simple, but it seems the C++ committee still haven't.
 
I don't think complexity is the main thing that hurts C++. The main thing is the lack
of fundamental types and good abstractions that other languages have. There
are still no uri, int128_t, float128, datetime, big_integer, big_decimal, or big_float
standard types. There are no good abstractions between byte sequences and
encoded character data. And the lack of types and good abstractions impedes the
development of open source libraries, including the implementations of specifications
that require support for 128 bit numbers, big integers, big decimals, diverse character
encodings, and so on. It's not as though these are new things, there is a massive
amount of prior experience, and most modern languages have them.
 
Daniel
spuddy@isnotyourbuddy.co.uk: Dec 28 02:48PM

On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:57:34 -0800 (PST)
>are still no uri, int128_t, float128, datetime, big_integer, big_decimal, or
>big_float
>standard types. There are no good abstractions between byte sequences and
 
A standard UTF8 string handling library would be useful too though a lot of
lanaguages seem to struggle with that.
spuddy@isnotyourbuddy.co.uk: Dec 28 02:52PM

On 28 Dec 2020 11:56:14 GMT
 
>- "still": the C++ committee didn't do anything weird to the language
> for the first twenty years of standardization.
 
>- Python and Java were advertised as clean and simple, too. I doubt
 
Not making Python 3 backwards compatible with 2 was an incomprehensible
decision IMO but 3 did tidy up some inconsistencies and syntax.
 
And yes, Java is a total mess, not just the core language but the sheer number
of libraries that are simply variations on a theme. But then I don't think
anyone would hold up Java as a benchmark for good design. It didn't even have
unsigned values until recently which is just farcical.
 
> Go, Swift and Rust will stay that way for long. Unless people stop
> using them.
 
I guess that depends on how tight the control of them is but the respective
authors.
Brian Wood <woodbrian77@gmail.com>: Dec 28 10:07AM -0800

> standard types. There are no good abstractions between byte sequences and
> encoded character data. And the lack of types and good abstractions impedes the
> development of open source libraries,
 
I'm not sure if I agree with the gist of this, but would just
say: "impedes the development of libraries." I encourage
people to have some closed source code. My project, for
example, is a blend of closed and open source code. I have
a library and three programs that use that library. The
library and two of the programs are open source. I'm not
Superman or even Batman. That's the best I can do at
this time.
 
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - Enjoying programming again.
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Dec 28 04:47PM -0500

> it becomes legacy like Cobol. Do we really want that for C++? Google, Apple
> and the Rust team have realised this and made their Go, Swift and Rust clear
> and simple, but it seems the C++ committee still haven't.
 
If C would add the basic class (with operator overrides and associated
class->style()->syntax()) to its core language definition, C++ would go
away very quickly IMO.
 
C code with those basic class abilities is all anyone truly needs to
write amazing low-level code.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.REMOVETHISBIT.co.uk>: Dec 28 09:57PM

On 28/12/2020 21:47, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> and simple, but it seems the C++ committee still haven't.
 
> If C would add the basic class (with operator overrides and associated class->style()->syntax()) to its core language definition, C++ would go away very quickly IMO.
 
> C code with those basic class abilities is all anyone truly needs to write amazing low-level code.
 
Stick to your religious spam as you are obviously clueless about C and C++.
 
/Flibble
 
--
😎
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Dec 28 07:59AM

> Many have forgotten the true meaning of CHRISTmas.
 
For a Christian religious zealot you seem to be almost hilariously unaware
of how unbiblical and pagan Christmas is.
 
For starters, there is no such holyday in the Bible. There is no command or
recommendation anywhere in the Bible for Christians (or anybody) to yearly
celebrate the birth of Jesus, and there isn't a single example of eg. the
apostles, Paul, or anybody else doing so or even saying anything of the
sort. It's not a biblical holyday or celebration.
 
Secondly, the origins of Christmas are purely pagan. It was not a holyday
that the Roman Church came up with out of thin air. It was an adaptation of
several existing pagan festivities that celebrated the winter solstice,
most prominently the Roman festival of Saturnalia (a name that persists to
this day as the "Merry Christmas" in Latin, announced eg. by the Pope).
The Church of Rome simply took the pagan festivity and assigned it a new
meaning.
 
Christmas itself is full of pagan traditions. Most prominently, the
decoration of a tree has its origins in pagan religions. You, of all people,
should know what the Bible says about following pagan religions and
following their practices. Even the worship of trees is mentioned in
the Bible directly.
 
Moreover, there's absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus was born
in December at all (clues in the story would indicate that he was born
in fall, probably somewhere around the feast of sukkot).
 
If you really want to find out the origins of Christmas, look up info
on Saturnalia.
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Dec 28 12:25AM -0800

On 12/27/2020 11:59 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> in fall, probably somewhere around the feast of sukkot).
 
> If you really want to find out the origins of Christmas, look up info
> on Saturnalia.
 
Easter is pagan as well... Worshiping the rabbits, and rolling/hiding
the eggs. As if bowing down to some sort of god of fertility.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Dec 28 08:35AM -0500

On 12/28/20 2:59 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>> Many have forgotten the true meaning of CHRISTmas.
 
> For a Christian religious zealot you seem to be almost hilariously unaware
> of how unbiblical and pagan Christmas is.
 
Have you read the verse:
 
Romans 14:4-7
 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14%3A4-7&version=KJV;NIV
 
4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own
master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for
the Lord is able to make them stand.
5 One person considers one day more sacred than another;
another considers every day alike. Each of them should
be fully convinced in their own mind.
6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord...
7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of
us dies for ourselves alone.
 
The Lord has not given Christians any explicit commands on certain days
to perform religious ceremonies. He says, "As often as you do this, do
so in remembrance of me" even with communion.
 
But for the Christian, each day will be served unto Him, remembering
Him, honoring Him, reaching out to others, etc.
 
So, the Christians who celebrate CHRISTmas don't do it for pagan
reasons. Whatever the origins might have been, when Christians
celebrate CHRISTmas it's to celebrate the birth of Christ, and as part
of a tradition in their families and communities. It's a way to reach
out to people in love, hope, and joy.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Dec 28 08:39AM -0500

On 12/28/20 3:25 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Easter is pagan as well... Worshiping the rabbits, and rolling/hiding
> the eggs. As if bowing down to some sort of god of fertility.
 
Easter is the celebration of our Lord rising from the dead. Christians
celebrate Easter, or rather "Resurrection Day" as many churches and
Christians call it, because on that day He was proven by God to be the
Christ, the Messiah, the Savior of all mankind by raising from the dead.
And all who put their faith and trust and hope in Him will rise with
Him on the final day.
 
Having a get-together where kids search after Easter eggs or anything
else is a tradition, an even to do. No Christian celebrates Easter for
those reasons alone.
 
Until you have a relationship with Jesus Christ, one that is of the
spirit, one that is daily and ongoing, you'll never know what it's like
to walk with Christ. It would be like a blind man not knowing what it's
like to actually see. But the day his eyes start working, then he knows
what it's like to see.
 
For those born again, it is like that.
 
There's a reason why these words were written in the song Amazing Grace:
 
"I once was lost, but now am found.
Was blind, but now I see."
 
It's a new birth. A new existence. The old man dies, the new man is
born. Everything changes when you come to Christ.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Dec 28 02:18PM

> The Lord has not given Christians any explicit commands on certain days
> to perform religious ceremonies.
 
That's where you are incorrect. God mandates several holidays on very
explicit dates, most particularly in Leviticus 23.
 
From all these festivals mandated by God, you instead choose to
celebrate a non-biblical festival that has direct roots to a pagan
festival, in particular the Roman Saturnalia.
 
All the unbiblical traditions of Christmas come from pagan religions,
such as the eating of pork (forbidden by God) and the decorating of
trees (see Jeremiah 10).
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Dec 28 09:37AM -0800

On Monday, December 28, 2020 at 9:18:36 AM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
 
> All the unbiblical traditions of Christmas come from pagan religions,
> such as the eating of pork (forbidden by God) and the decorating of
> trees (see Jeremiah 10).
 
You are conflating two testaments. The Old Testament is the Law of Moses. The New Testament is a new testament in Jesus' blood. Jesus put to death the Old Testament in His death at the cross. He's made all things new.
 
There's more information than you know, Juha. The Bible teaches both testaments because both are important. The things God commanded in the past are for profit in fighting against a spiritual enemy you can't see. But the John 3 new spiritual birth changes everything. God walks with us in our life literally. He's not here in the flesh as Jesus once was and will be again. He is with us spiritually, His Holy Spirit communing with our spirit. This is not possible until a person is saved, for the flesh cannot discern spiritual matters. It's like the light hitting your cheek. Your cheek can't see. For sight you need an eye. For spiritual matters you need a spirit.
 
Research these things, Juha. Learn the truth from the Bible itself. It will overturn all the lies the enemy of God and you tries to teach people. It will set your feet and course on solid ground.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.REMOVETHISBIT.co.uk>: Dec 28 08:39PM

On 28/12/2020 17:37, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> You are conflating two testaments. The Old Testament is the Law of Moses. The New Testament is a new testament in Jesus' blood. Jesus put to death the Old Testament in His death at the cross. He's made all things new.
 
> There's more information than you know, Juha. The Bible teaches both testaments because both are important. The things God commanded in the past are for profit in fighting against a spiritual enemy you can't see. But the John 3 new spiritual birth changes everything. God walks with us in our life literally. He's not here in the flesh as Jesus once was and will be again. He is with us spiritually, His Holy Spirit communing with our spirit. This is not possible until a person is saved, for the flesh cannot discern spiritual matters. It's like the light hitting your cheek. Your cheek can't see. For sight you need an eye. For spiritual matters you need a spirit.
 
> Research these things, Juha. Learn the truth from the Bible itself. It will overturn all the lies the enemy of God and you tries to teach people. It will set your feet and course on solid ground.
 
And Satan invented fossils, yes? Spammer?
 
/Flibble
 
--
😎
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Dec 28 04:43PM -0500

On 12/28/20 3:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> And Satan invented fossils, yes? Spammer?
 
If you're so against spam, why do you post anything?
 
:-)
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Dec 28 12:39PM -0600

On 12/26/2020 6:40 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> right from the start?
 
> The requirement that some function always return a value is a common
> one,
 
Many of the functions of the standard C library can be invoked such that
they fail to return any result to their caller:
 
None of these functions return a result to their caller.
 
double H_Hat(double P)
{
double Input_Halts = sqrt(H_Hat(P));
}
 
void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
u32 Input_Halts = Simulate(P, P); // Where P = (u32)H_Hat
}
 
void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P); // Where P = (u32)H_Hat
} // and Halts is based on Simulate
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
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.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)