http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++?hl=en
comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Who gets higher salary a Java Programmer or a C++ Programmer? - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/t/4017272356b778c8?hl=en
* question about private member - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/t/a6df0a5b67849ef0?hl=en
* Types through a macro - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/t/bb3a4df299d49059?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Who gets higher salary a Java Programmer or a C++ Programmer?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/t/4017272356b778c8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 11:20 pm
From: LR
Keith H Duggar wrote:
> On Nov 28, 6:59 pm, LR <lr...@superlink.net> wrote:
>> Keith H Duggar wrote:
>>> Software Engineering is replete with scientific principles.
>>> Here are but a few off the top of my head:
>> I'm not familiar with most of these and I had to look most of them up.
>> I'm still in the process of looking some of them up. I am unfortunately
>> pressed for time so I regret that I can't give each of these the
>> attention they deserve. So briefly, very briefly:
>
> It seems we'll need to wait until you have more time because:
>
> [snip categorizations of the several scientific principles]
>
>> I'm certain that I've overlooked some obvious point or made some
>> mistake. Please feel free to point those out.
>
> fails to make any point as far as I can see. Did you have a
> point you were trying to make?
In the context of this discussion? I'm trying to point out that I don't
think that software development is an engineering discipline and I
suspect it cannot be one.
>
>>> Murphy's Law
>> Ok, perhaps you got me. But it's not, I don't think, a scientific law
>> or principle. Maybe it should be. Or you haven't offered proof of the
>> law, or shown how it's applied to the production of software.
>
> Murphy's Law is applied regularly in engineering disciplines
> including software engineering.
Please be specific. How is it applied in engineering? How does it
qualify as a scientific principle? What physical phenomena is it related to?
> I do not see much of a need to
> "show" this any more than I see a need to show that algebra is
> used often in graph theory or combinatorics. That is to say it
> is such an obvious fact to anyone with a engineering education
> that "showing" it seems trite.
I don't have an engineering education.
> On the other hand, if you are largely (or nearly completely)
> ignorant of what engineering involves, how engineering is done,
> how engineering is taught, how it relates to science, etc, then
> I might be more patience to offer you a bit of free education.
> But only if you 1) admit that you are ignorant
I cheerfully admit that I am ignorant and my ignorance is vast.
> 2) demonstrate an open mind and willingness to learn
Please tell me how this can be demonstrated.
> 3) provide an honest estimate of your current degree of knowledge.
Isn't that redundant? I mean given item 1? And if not, and I am
ignorant, how can I presume to do this?
> (1) is crucial to establishing the right mindset and attitude.
Then it would seem that I completely in the right frame of mind and I
have the proper attitude.
> (2) is obviously necessary in a newsgroup context.
I think this is too narrow. Frankly I find it a requirement in almost
every aspect of my life.
> (3) is will help us find an appropriate starting point.
My personal view is that the beginning is always the best point to start.
> Finally, it would be a kindness and one very helpful to me if
> you state honestly what your goal is.
This implies a level of self-knowledge that my ignorance might not
allow, but I'll try.
> Do you seek to learn?
I think that I am always seeking to learn. Many things. However, I have
to admit that I one of the things that I have learned over the years is
that my mental abilities are not unlimited. Also, I am not the smartest
person I know.
> Do you seek to persuade?
I don't know the answer to this. I think it may be beyond my abilities
to persuade people. Even in situations where people tell me that they
think I'm right, they very often stick to their own
acknowledged-to-be-wrong opinions. So I'm not sure that I can do that,
although I think I would like to be able to.
> Do you seek to troll?
No. At least I don't think so. It seems like a pointless, obnoxious and
boring thing to do. Although, I understand there are people who troll as
a hobby. What gratification they derive from this I cannot say.
However, I do enjoy the occasional tongue in cheek comment.
> Do you seek to pass time?
Always. With as much pleasure and enjoyment as I can manage, either at
work or play. Is it possible not to do this? What would the alternative be?
> Do you see to reinforce your existing prejudices?
Prejudices? Although I take exception to the word "prejudices" it may be
besides the point of the answer, which in this case is: Yes and no.
> Do you seek to "prove" that you are smart?
Is it even possible to do this? Besides which, I said that I don't
think I'm very persuasive.
> Do you seek to show that others are stupid or naive?
I think that this is so obvious that it need not be proved. But I
wouldn't limit it to others, I'd include myself too.
> etc.
I'm not sure what you wanted by etc., but I would appreciate it, if my
answers incline you to make good on your offer, if you would answer the
questions you asked too. I would like to know how you think, so that I
may better understand what you say.
Should my answers not incline you to make good on your offer, then at
least you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you provided an
interesting opportunity for self-exploration, which I found an education
in itself.
LR
==============================================================================
TOPIC: question about private member
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/t/a6df0a5b67849ef0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 11:45 pm
From: "Bill"
"Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ggqgrq011hr@news6.newsguy.com...
>
> <zhangyefei.yefei@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:00419a46-05e1-4730-8efc-04aef46477aa@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> class String
>> {
>> public:
>> String & operate=(const String *other)
>> {
>> delete m_data;
>> m_data=new char[strlen(other.m_data)+1];
>> strcpy(m_data,other.m_data);
>> }
>> private:
>> char *m_data;
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>> in the above calss, why memeber function can access the object other's
>> private m_data?
>> according to Principle of Encapsulation ,a boject can not access other
>> object's private memeber.
>>
>> do anyone give me any explanation ?
>> thanks in advance
>> .
>>
>
> Because it's a member of the same class. It works this way because it
> would be too difficult (or impossible) at compile time to determine which
> type of object a pointer in a method was pointing to (IIRC, from Bjarne
> Stroustrup's fine book).
>
> Bill
By "which type", of course, I meant the invoking object or the one in the
parameter list, or some other object of the same type. I hope that helps.
It's not that it "should" be this way--it's that the alternatives, in view
of the implementation of the language translator, leave few choices.
Bill
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Types through a macro
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/t/bb3a4df299d49059?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 29 2008 12:12 am
From: Gert-Jan de Vos
On Nov 28, 9:30 pm, Kaba <n...@here.com> wrote:
> ...
> What I'd like to do is essentially the following:
>
> E<MACRO(C<int, int>)> e;
Why not just:
typedef C<int, int> MyC;
E<MACRO(MyC)> e;
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "comp.lang.c++"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment