Monday, May 23, 2016

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 8 topics

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram): May 23 09:50AM

>Wouter "Objects? No Thanks!" van Ooijen
 
Even with templates, usually storage is required too.
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram): May 23 11:09AM

>(unless you count the built-in stuff like integers, arrays and
>references as objects)
 
C++ has no built-in objects, but it has built-in types.
»int« is a built-in types. 1.9p7 says:
 
»An instance of each object with automatic storage
duration (3.7.3) is associated with each entry into
its block.«
 
So, when the block »{ int i; }« is entered, an instance
of an int object is created for example.
 
One of the most excellent features of C++ is, how objects
of fundamental type often are treated the same as objects
of class type. Our use of language also reflects this.
We do not deem only objects of class type to be »objects«,
but also objects of fundamental types. Otherwise, it would
become more difficult to speak. For example, the above
quotation then would have to be rewritten as,
 
»An instance of each /object or region of storage of
fundamental type/ with automatic storage duration
(3.7.3) is associated with each entry into its block.«
 
In Java, the word »object« in fact is used only for
storage of class type, while storage of primitive or
reference type is called a »variable«. So every language
has its terminology.
bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: May 23 06:12PM +0200

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: May 23 06:16PM +0200

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: May 23 06:46PM +0200

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: May 23 07:15PM +0200

Ramine <ramine@1.1>: May 23 12:48PM -0700

Hello,
 
I have learned C++ for just one week, and i have after that
implemented my Scalable Parallel C++ Conjugate Gradient Linear System
Solver Library, please look at how i have factored it using
four C++ classes, and as you have noticed my library is
scalable on multicores and on NUMA architecture and it is
cache-aware. And i have tested it thoroughly and i think
it is more stable now.
 
Please download it and take a look at it from here:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/scalable-parallel-c-conjugate-gradient-linear-system-solver-library
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: May 23 01:15PM -0700

On 5/23/2016 12:48 PM, Ramine wrote:
 
> https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/scalable-parallel-c-conjugate-gradient-linear-system-solver-library
 
> Thank you,
> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
 
 
Notice also, that if you give wrong method arguments, it is my Dynamic
Link Libraries implemented in Object Pascal that will catch the errors.
 
I have taken care of that.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>: May 23 06:56PM +0200

Suppose (say) I developed a float128 floating point class using
operator overloading.
 
How could I dirct the compiler to simplify:
 
float128_t a = 123.567F128 + 234.5678F128;
 
to do the addition at compile time?
Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: May 23 07:11PM +0200

Op 23-May-16 om 6:56 PM schreef jacobnavia:
 
> How could I dirct the compiler to simplify:
 
> float128_t a = 123.567F128 + 234.5678F128;
 
> to do the addition at compile time?
 
make your opeartor+ constexpr
 
Wouter "Objects? No thanks!" van Ooijen
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: May 23 12:17PM -0700

Hello..........
 
 
My Scalable Parallel C++ Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver Library
is here...
 
 
Author: Amine Moulay Ramdane
 
Description:
 
This library contains a Scalable Parallel implementation of
Conjugate Gradient Dense Linear System Solver library that is
NUMA-aware and cache-aware, and it contains also a Scalable
Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Sparse Linear
System Solver library that is cache-aware.
 
Please download the zip file and read the readme file inside the zip
to know how to use it.
 
Language: GNU C++ and Visual C++ and C++Builder
 
Operating Systems: Windows, Linux, Unix and OSX on (x86)
 
 
You can download my Scalable Parallel C++ Conjugate Gradient Linear
System Solver Library from:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/scalable-parallel-c-conjugate-gradient-linear-system-solver-library
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: May 23 12:15PM -0700

Hello....
 
 
My Scalable Parallel C++ Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver Library
is here...
 
 
Author: Amine Moulay Ramdane
 
Description:
 
This library contrains a Scalable Parallel implementation of
Conjugate Gradient Dense Linear System Solver library that is
NUMA-aware and cache-aware, and it contains also a Scalable
Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Sparse Linear
System Solver library that is cache-aware.
 
Please download the zip file and read the readme file inside the zip
to know how to use it.
 
Language: GNU C++ and Visual C++ and C++Builder
 
Operating Systems: Windows, Linux, Unix and OSX on (x86)
 
 
You can download my Scalable Parallel C++ Conjugate Gradient Linear
System Solver Library from:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/scalable-parallel-c-conjugate-gradient-linear-system-solver-library
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 23 09:32AM +0200

On 21/05/16 15:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 
> Oh, and one other thing. I notice you want to stop discussing things
> right when you challenged me to provide links to archaeological evidence
> of stories in Genesis, AND I DID.
 
Actually, I stopped discussing when it was clear that you were posting
the same spurious claims again and again, and I had better things to do.
 
I find discussions on religion interesting at times - it can be
thought-provoking, I can learn new things, and it can be useful and
interesting to understand what other people believe and how they think.
But there are some times of discussion partner that make these topics
pointless. One is the kind of fanatic who quotes parts of the Bible,
points to youtube links of frothing-at-the-mouth TV evangelists, and
"prays for you" rather than reading anything you write, or trying to
answer questions. Another is the kind of person who is so convinced of
his own superiority that he cannot fathom that anyone would disagree
with him, or fail to accept his word as gospel.
 
I asked repeatedly for links. I asked for concrete evidence of stories
in the Bible. You /told/ me that there was evidence for Sodom and
Gomorrah, but provided no links or evidence. You /told/ me that there
was evidence of large floods in the past, totally missing the point of
the story in the Bible as well as the point of the question, and even
there you could not provide anything to substantiate your claim. The
sum total of your "links to archaeological evidence of the stories in
Genesis" was a link to google.
 
From this, I conclude that your beliefs about Genesis are purely
circular. (That's understandable enough - that's why it is "religion",
not "science". You, and everyone else, are free to /believe/ whatever
you like. It's the denial of your own faith, and the misguided attempts
to "prove" the Biblical stories, that I find hypocritical and an
irritating abuse of science.)
 
And thus there is no point in my discussing anything further with you here.
 
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 23 10:00AM +0200


>> Okay. Unlike some here I don't try to
>> suppress your views.
 
> I'm free to nag though at those who swear here
 
You are free to do so in the sense that no one is able to stop you
(appeals to reason, or basic social etiquette, don't seem to help, and
no one can /force/ you to stop). But you should be aware that your
nagging about swearing is far more annoying to most people than the
swearing usually is - most of the time, no one else noticed anything
until /you/ pointed it out. And your posts invariably provoke
follow-ups with stronger language. So your posts contribute
significantly to increasing swearing in the group - probably more than
any other individual poster.
 
Now, if a poster here were in the habit of using "four letter words" in
every sentence, or calling other posters "colourful" names, I could
agree that it is bad for the newsgroup environment. There are some
newsgroups where such posters exist, and their posts are not pleasant
and friendly. An /occasional/ request to such people is not out of
place - but even there, nagging is /always/ irritating and unhelpful.
 
> and free to work to preserve/create a friendly
> place for people of faith interested in C++.
 
This is a place for people who are interested in C++ to discuss
together, aiming mostly for C++ topics. An occasional off-topic thread
is okay too, IMHO, although as off-topic discussions annoy some people,
they should definitely only be /occasional/.
 
And any sort of proselytizing or religious dogma is very definitely
off-topic, and does not add to a making "a friendly place for people
interested in C++". If you want to make a place for discussion C++ and
Christianity together, feel free to do so - but comp.lang.c++ is not
that place. Here we are open to everyone, of any nationality, faith,
age, gender, etc. - all you need is an interest in C++ and basic
communication skills in English. We don't want anyone to feel unwelcome
just because they have a different religion than the one you happen to have.
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 23 10:12AM +0200

On 20/05/16 23:25, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> (individuals, societies, ideas, whatever) who have no
> descendants, are not those whose inheritable traits are not
> passed on.
 
A key point with evolution being a scientific theory is that it /can/ be
disproved. If evidence is found that unequivocally demonstrates that
evolution is not correct, then it can be disproved as a whole or in
part. Careful measurements of planetary motions proved that the
Newtonian theory gravity was only an approximation - and a new theory,
relativity, improved upon it. If someone finds a dog that suddenly
gives birth to a cat, that would disprove evolution as we currently know
it, and show that we need a more complete theory. (Since its inception,
evolution has had many aspects challenged, leading to refinement,
extensions and improvement, especially in the biological implementation
of evolution - though nothing has contradicted the basic elements of the
theory.)
 
> general anything can be proved from a falsehood, and
> the key feature of religious belief is that it's irrational,
> completely nuts in some way, which is how we recognize it.
 
Indeed. One of the major differences between science and religion is
that in science, ideas can be disproved - indeed, that is a key aim of
science, and one of the ways in which it progresses. In religion, ideas
cannot be disproved, and people are strongly discouraged from
questioning them or trying to disprove them.
 
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: May 23 11:44AM +0200

On 23.05.2016 10:12, David Brown wrote:
> disproved. If evidence is found that unequivocally demonstrates that
> evolution is not correct, then it can be disproved as a whole or in
> part.
 
Not in whole, since evolution is just a logical consequence of
inheritable traits. But in part, yes. That's currently going on.
 
Namely, the vast majority (as I understand it) of biologists have for
decades subscribed to a group concensus that evolution acts on
individuals and only on individuals. They have sidestepped the question
of how to define "individual" in general. And so they are
pseudo-religiously sure that evolution doesn't act on parts of
individuals, or on groups of individuals; in their view that's impossible.
 
And for about the last 15 to 20 years that idiot's majority view has
been repeatedly challenged.
 
It somehow reminds me of cosmologists. They have this group consensus
that expansion of space only acts on space between (similarly arbitrary
scale decision) galaxies. It started because stuff at the level of
galaxies and smaller are easier to handle mathematically with one kind
of statistics, while groups of glalaxies and higher are easier with
another kind. And those who learn by memorizing instead of
understanding, took this to mean a fundamental difference in behavior.
Thus up above there sits some God-like being and decides what qualifies
as galaxy or not, and applies slightly different laws of nature.
 
Needless to say, since I so easily come up with these examples, I do not
have much faith in scientists' ability to be scientific when subjected
to group pressure – the same mechanism that drives religion.
 
 
[snip]
 
 
Cheers!,
 
the off-topic Alf
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 23 01:21PM +0200

On 23/05/16 11:44, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> of how to define "individual" in general. And so they are
> pseudo-religiously sure that evolution doesn't act on parts of
> individuals, or on groups of individuals; in their view that's impossible.
 
The usual view of evolution is that it acts on species or groups, /not/
on individuals. Apart from that, it is certainly the case that
evolution has been seen to be active in more ways and in wider contexts
than was thought previously (for example, we used to think of the "tree
of life" - now we know it is more like the "web of life"). And it is
also certainly the case that it is very difficult to define an
"individual" in biology.
 
> And for about the last 15 to 20 years that idiot's majority view has
> been repeatedly challenged.
 
I am not sure what you mean by "that idiot's majority view" here. Are
you referring to the views held by the majority of people (which is
usually a very simplified and somewhat inaccurate idea of "survival of
the fittest"), or the views held by the majority of biological
scientists, or the views held by some idiots (such as those who try to
twist science into fitting with their own pre-conceived ideas)?
 
The experts' view of evolution, especially the details of where and how
it happens, has changed significantly over the years - but there is
always a degree of conservatism against new ideas until they have
collected enough evidence and supporters.
 
> understanding, took this to mean a fundamental difference in behavior.
> Thus up above there sits some God-like being and decides what qualifies
> as galaxy or not, and applies slightly different laws of nature.
 
I can't speak for "cosmologists", or anyone else, but this does not fit
with the impression I get. The expansion of space only has a measurable
effect at intergalactic distances, so it is best known and studied
there. But it applies down to the space between atomic nuclei and their
electrons. If I remember rightly, you can read a little about it in a
recent "Illustrert Vitenskap" article on the end of the universe -
according to current projections, there will come a point where the
increasing atomic spacing will cause molecules (and therefore chemistry)
to break down, then atoms will break down. I don't think we can predict
what will happen at a smaller level, because that depends too much on
what space and matter actually /are/. Perhaps what will happen is that
as quarks are pulled further away from each other, new quark/anti-quarks
will pop into existence, and the universe will renew itself.
 
As for galaxies, there is no single definition. It's just a collection
of stars, dust clouds, etc., held together by gravity, in a relatively
close lump. And similarly, clusters are groups of galaxies. Dwarf
galaxies are smaller structures, and satellite galaxies are like dwarf
galaxies that orbit bigger galaxies. Modern telescopes and analysis
have shown more of these sorts of structures than we knew about previously.
 
And a great deal of effort (in theoretical and practical cosmology) goes
into trying to understand how the same laws of nature work in the same
way for all scales. Dark matter theories come from the assumption that
gravity works the same way locally and at galactic scales, even though
it appears to be stronger in galaxies - thus comes the idea that there
is significant mass in galaxies that we cannot see. Dark energy
theories come from the assumption that gravity works the same way on
intergalactic scales where it appears to be weaker, causing space to
expand faster. And there are other theorists who want to abandon the
idea of gravity being the same at all scales, and find a theory where
varying gravitational forces could explain our observations. But they
don't want to apply different laws of nature at different scales - they
want to find a single law that fits observations at different scales.
 
As I say, I can't speak for cosmologists in general, or the ones that
you have experience with - but if /I/ can grasp this stuff, at least at
the level I outlined here, then I am pretty sure that serious
cosmologists are well aware of it.
 
 
> Needless to say, since I so easily come up with these examples, I do not
> have much faith in scientists' ability to be scientific when subjected
> to group pressure – the same mechanism that drives religion.
 
Well, scientists are human too - we should not forget that. The point
of scientific methods is to reduce the effect of personal ideas or
convictions as we gradually enhance the body of human knowledge.
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 23 10:40AM -0400

On 5/23/2016 3:32 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> of stories in Genesis, AND I DID.
 
> Actually, I stopped discussing when it was clear that you were posting
> the same spurious claims again and again, and I had better things to do.
 
You stopped discussing it when it became apparent you were wrong.
 
> answer questions. Another is the kind of person who is so convinced of
> his own superiority that he cannot fathom that anyone would disagree
> with him, or fail to accept his word as gospel.
 
It will never be "thought-provoking" to someone with a closed mind such
as yours. And you should look in a mirror when you talk about not being
able to fathom someone disagreeing with you.
 
> there you could not provide anything to substantiate your claim. The
> sum total of your "links to archaeological evidence of the stories in
> Genesis" was a link to google.
 
Wrong. You just choose to ignore the links. Yes, it was a link to
Google - a Google search which returned numerous links supporting what I
said. Much better than a single link. But I guess you're too stoopid
to click on the links.
 
> to "prove" the Biblical stories, that I find hypocritical and an
> irritating abuse of science.)
 
> And thus there is no point in my discussing anything further with you here.
 
Yes, there is no point in discussing with a closed mind. You just can't
admit that you are wrong about something - a trait you have shown
repeatedly.
 
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 22 06:59PM -0700

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 7:12:53 PM UTC-4, jacobnavia wrote:
> What do you say about that Hodgin? Did you look at them?
 
Of course not. There is blasphemy and profanity involved. These are
things the enemy encourages us to participate in through sin because
that enemy knows that when we follow his guidance, even deeper movement
into more and more sin becomes not only possible, but inevitable.
 
God commands His people to be holy for a reason (it's because not being
holy truly does harm us, and being holy truly does empower us in our
active pursuit of His Spirit, and in seeking His Kingdom and His ways).
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: May 23 06:14AM

> At the cross, Jesus took our filthy shame, and exchanged it for
> His spotless righteousness. No penalty. No condemnation.
> A full pardon despite our guilt.
 
I'm sorry, but your words do not have magical power, even though you
think they have. Sorry to break the illusion.
 
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org>: May 23 09:37AM +0200

On 23.05.16 08.14, Juha Nieminen wrote:
 
Do not reply to SPAM nor feed the trolls, please.
It makes the trash postings visible to the ones with appropriate filters
because the reply now appears with your ID.
 
 
Marcel
Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com>: May 23 09:37AM -0300

On 05/23/2016 04:37 AM, Marcel Mueller wrote:
> It makes the trash postings visible to the ones with appropriate filters
> because the reply now appears with your ID.
 
> Marcel
 
+1
 
(these religious nuts from usenet are all in my kill file, but they are
continuously appearing thanks to these kind of replies)
 
--
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: May 23 06:08AM

> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-i-dont-spend-time-modern-c-anymore-henrique-bucher-phd
 
> Interesting and true. We just transitioned from Visual C++ 2005 to Visual C++ 2015. Much improved. And way slower, especially the
> linker!
 
Another developer whining about compilation times and number of features.
 
Whenever someone whines about compilation times, I immediately disregard
the entire thing. It's such a retarded thing to whine about.
 
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: May 23 08:56AM +0200

Op 20-May-16 om 3:16 AM schreef Lynn McGuire:
> "Why I don't spend time with Modern C++ anymore" by Henrique Bucher
 
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-i-dont-spend-time-modern-c-anymore-henrique-bucher-phd
 
Why did that article raise such a sorm? There is hardly any real
argument in it.
 
He complains that the C++ comittee steers the language in the wrong
direction. But the comittee doesn't steer, it merely filters what it
gets as inputs. Now if he complained about his prosals being rejected he
would have a good point, but now he is in effect complaining that them
other people did not write the papers he would like to see. He dude, if
you want something done, do it!
 
Another complaint is that the language is too complex. In that he has a
point. But the alternative is a languge that is not backwards compatible
and hence almost un-used. Unless someone creates a realy good
alternative (there are attempts) I stick with what I can use now on
almost every micro-controller I need to program.
 
Another complaint is that he sees programs (using the new features) that
are too complex and (hence) too slow. OK< so you can use those features
in a wrong way. Tell me something new! That is a complaint about how
those features are used. I manily program small micro-controllers, and
some of those fancy new features (constexpr! templates, even some form
of lambda's) help me a lot to make my programs smaller and faster.
Especially templates.
 
Wouter "Objects? No Thanks!" van Ooijen
Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: May 23 12:42PM +0200

Op 23-May-16 om 11:50 AM schreef Stefan Ram:
> Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> writes:
>> Wouter "Objects? No Thanks!" van Ooijen
 
> Even with templates, usually storage is required too.
 
"Objects? No Thanks" is of course a teaser - I use classes as
compile-time objects. So in the literal C++ sense I don't use objects
(unless you count the built-in stuff like integers, arrays and
references as objects), but I do use objects in a more abstract sense.
Indeed, something must be stored.
 
Wouter "Objects? No Thanks!" van Ooijen
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)