Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #41263 > unrolled thread

"Current Proposals for C++17"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  "Current Proposals for C++17" Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2016-02-26 16:40 -0600
    Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2016-02-26 17:51 -0500
    Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-02-26 23:21 +0000
    Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-02-27 00:54 +0000
      Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 05:19 +0100
        Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-27 14:41 +0100
          Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-02-27 08:45 -0800
            Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-28 16:43 +0100
              Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-02-28 10:24 -0800
        Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2016-02-27 19:41 +0100
          Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-02-27 11:23 -0800
            Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2016-02-28 22:18 +0100
              Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-02-28 14:27 -0800
                Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2016-03-06 20:10 +0100
                  Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-03-06 11:59 -0800
                    Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2016-03-06 21:57 +0100
                      Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-03-06 13:49 -0800
                    Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 17:51 +0000
                  Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-03-06 17:02 -0800
                  C++ style varies widely (was: "Current Proposals for C++17") legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-03-07 16:48 +0000
          Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-03-01 06:55 +0000
            Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2016-03-06 21:03 +0100
              Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-03-07 17:03 +0000
      Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-02-27 17:25 -0800
        Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-02-28 02:15 +0000
          Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 07:33 +0000
            Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-02-28 19:42 +0000
              Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 21:04 +0000
              Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-29 10:18 +1300
        Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-02-28 09:19 +0100
          Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 14:05 -0800
          Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 19:03 -0800
            Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-29 09:04 +0100
              Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 11:21 +0100
                Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 02:46 -0800
                  Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2016-02-29 22:19 -0800
                    Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-01 09:27 +0100
                    Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 05:20 -0800
        Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-03-01 06:57 +0000
          Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-03-01 09:51 -0800
            Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-01 18:08 +0000
            Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-03-01 20:07 +0100
            Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-03-01 20:17 +0000
      Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-02-28 18:26 +0000
        Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" red floyd <no.spam@its.invalid> - 2016-02-29 10:09 -0800
    Re: "Current Proposals for C++17" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-29 14:29 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#41349

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> spake the secret code
<nasqe0$vgd$1@dont-email.me> thusly:

>Op 27-Feb-16 om 5:19 schreef Alf P. Steinbach:
>> On 27.02.2016 01:54, Richard wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> spake the secret code
>>> <naqk3a$s2i$1@dont-email.me> thusly:
>>>
>>>> There is not a standard user interface toolkit proposal.
>>>
>>> Don't need it.
>>>
>>> There are already several good defacto standards: Qt, wxWidgets, and
>>> (less to my personal taste, but relevant) MFC. [...]
>
>Unfortunately those user interface kits are showing their age; they 
>don't take advantage of modern C++ features but instead choose to supply 
>their own string, container...etc classes and mechanisms. All of this 
>was understandable in the nineties before C++ was standardized but is 
>unforgivable in this day and age.

That's a fair criticism.  wxWidgets (and I assume Qt, but I know less
about how they decide future directions) would welcome a modern
version of the toolkit that used C++ more directly.  However, consider
that wxWidgets is constrained by the underlying GUI toolkit of the
environment (Win32, Cocoa, Tcl/Tk, whatever).  There isn't always a
good mapping from modern C++ to these underlying systems.

And jesus, no, we don't need something that isn't an evolution of what
we currently have.  In other words, creating an ivory tower type GUI
library that feels good from a modern C++ perspective, but provides no
bridge to existing GUI technologies or API is a complete waste of
time.  Existing defacto standards have momentum and pretending that
your library is better without that momentum on your side is silly.
It can't be 10% or even 50% better if you're proposing an entirely new
library, it has to be 5000% better to convince people it's worth
learning/switching from what they already know.

>Development of WinForms has stopped well over a decade ago, [...]

The key thing you're all missing when you list GUI libraries for these
other languages is THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE STANDARD.  Sometimes this is
because there is no standard for the language, or because the standard
only specifies the language and not any pile of libraries on top).  C#
standard doesn't specify the .NET Framework, which is a pile of libraries
from Microsoft.  And so-on.

My point is that these other languages are doing just fine,
thank you, without "standardizing" a GUI toolkit.  So is C++.
There is no need for a GUI toolkit in the C++ standard because we
already have defacto standards that are serving the need just fine.
I could understand this clamor for a GUI toolkit if there was nothing
available and there was a huge screaming void, but there have been
C++ GUI toolkit libraries since 1988 when InterViews was described
and that was done straight on top of Xlib, which was a C API.
<http://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/cs257/archive/mark-linton/interviews.pdf>
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
     The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
         The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
  Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41449

Op 01-Mar-16 om 7:55 schreef Richard:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> spake the secret code
> <nasqe0$vgd$1@dont-email.me> thusly:
>
>> Op 27-Feb-16 om 5:19 schreef Alf P. Steinbach:
>>> On 27.02.2016 01:54, Richard wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> spake the secret code
>>>> <naqk3a$s2i$1@dont-email.me> thusly:
>>>>
>>>>> There is not a standard user interface toolkit proposal.
>>>>
>>>> Don't need it.
>>>>
>>>> There are already several good defacto standards: Qt, wxWidgets, and
>>>> (less to my personal taste, but relevant) MFC. [...]
>>
>> Unfortunately those user interface kits are showing their age; they
>> don't take advantage of modern C++ features but instead choose to supply
>> their own string, container...etc classes and mechanisms. All of this
>> was understandable in the nineties before C++ was standardized but is
>> unforgivable in this day and age.
>
> That's a fair criticism.  wxWidgets (and I assume Qt, but I know less
> about how they decide future directions) would welcome a modern
> version of the toolkit that used C++ more directly.  However, consider
> that wxWidgets is constrained by the underlying GUI toolkit of the
> environment (Win32, Cocoa, Tcl/Tk, whatever).  There isn't always a
> good mapping from modern C++ to these underlying systems.

wxWidgets is clearly inspired by MFC; not my favorite to put it mildly. 
In the defense of MFC one can argue that when it was conceived in the 
early nineties the Microsoft compiler supported little more than "C with 
classes"; no exceptions, no templates, no standard library (thus no 
standard string and container classes) and slow processors and a not 
terribly clever compiler. No such excuses for wxWidgets.

As far the underlying GUI toolkit and modern C++ features are concerned; 
those are mostly orthogonal aspects.

> And jesus, no, we don't need something that isn't an evolution of what
> we currently have.  In other words, creating an ivory tower type GUI
> library that feels good from a modern C++ perspective, but provides no
> bridge to existing GUI technologies or API is a complete waste of
> time.  Existing defacto standards have momentum and pretending that
> your library is better without that momentum on your side is silly.

The problem in the C++ world is that there is no defacto standard as far 
as UI toolkits are concerned, there are god know how many C++ UI 
libraries out there. Qt being arguably the best one if you can live with 
the bloat, but still far from ideal as far as I'm concerned.

And by the way I don't have my own UI library, and have zero intention 
to create one. Those are the kind of things I rather buy than build myself.

>> It can't be 10% or even 50% better if you're proposing an entirely new
>> library, it has to be 5000% better to convince people it's worth
>> learning/switching from what they already know.

You are missing the point. I find building UI applications in C++ rather 
unproductive compared to most other programming languages I know of. One 
reason is that they don't take advantage of modern C++ features (they 
added those to the language for reason you know) but instead rely on on 
their own kludges to implement features C++ compliers didn't have back 
in the nineties. Another being that C++ UI libraries tend to have their 
own types for string and containers. Now I'm not a big fan of the 
standard library, but it is a _standard_ supported by all compilers. The 
problem with a library having its own types is you have to write glue 
code (which is error prone and doesn't add value) unless the library 
does every you will ever need, which is probably the reason why Qt 
attempts to provide everything but the kitchen sink.

>> Development of WinForms has stopped well over a decade ago, [...]
>
> The key thing you're all missing when you list GUI libraries for these
> other languages is THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE STANDARD.  Sometimes this is
> because there is no standard for the language, or because the standard
> only specifies the language and not any pile of libraries on top).  C#
> standard doesn't specify the .NET Framework, which is a pile of libraries
> from Microsoft.  And so-on.

Strawman argument. I'm not arguing for having a C++ UI library in the 
standard. I'm arguing for a UI library that smoothly interfaces with the 
types provided by the standard library.

> My point is that these other languages are doing just fine,
> thank you, without "standardizing" a GUI toolkit.

Unlike C++ many programming languages, like C#, have one or only a very 
few "defacto" UI libraries that do interface smoothly with the types in 
standard library that comes with the language.

> So is C++.

If you just need an UI, C++ is rarely the best option IMO.

> There is no need for a GUI toolkit in the C++ standard because we
> already have defacto standards that are serving the need just fine.

Notice the words "defacto" and "standards" . Now think about that for a 
moment (hint: the latter word is plural).

> I could understand this clamor for a GUI toolkit if there was nothing
> available and there was a huge screaming void, but there have been
> C++ GUI toolkit libraries since 1988 when InterViews was described
> and that was done straight on top of Xlib, which was a C API.
> <http://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/cs257/archive/mark-linton/interviews.pdf>

Again strawman argument. No one is claiming there are no UI toolkits for 
C++, if anything there are rather too many which is an indication that 
there are apparently more people not too satisfied with the UI libraries 
that already existed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41465

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> spake the secret code
<nbi271$272$1@dont-email.me> thusly:

>The problem in the C++ world is that there is no defacto standard as far 
>as UI toolkits are concerned, there are god know how many C++ UI 
>libraries out there. Qt being arguably the best one if you can live with 
>the bloat, but still far from ideal as far as I'm concerned.

I disagree that there is no defacto standard.  There are two prominent
ones: Qt and wxWidgets.  MFC is there as well, but not being cross
platform it never achieved industry wide defacto status.  Perhaps
defacto on Windows, though I prefer WTL for Windows only UI
programming.

>You are missing the point. I find building UI applications in C++ rather 
>unproductive compared to most other programming languages I know of. One 
>reason is that they don't take advantage of modern C++ features (they 
>added those to the language for reason you know) but instead rely on on 
>their own kludges to implement features C++ compliers didn't have back 
>in the nineties.

As someone that works on a Qt application every day and a wxWidgets
application part-time, I disagree.  Yes, those things are there if
you want to use them, but nothing is forcing you to use them.  I know
in the case of Qt their API is becoming more compatible with STL style
usage in every release.

>Another being that C++ UI libraries tend to have their 
>own types for string and containers.

So does LLVM and clang.  Are you going to throw them under the bus as
well for this?  std::string is a decent class, but if you have
specific string needs that don't match the semantics of std::string,
there is nothing inherently "bad" about making your own string class.
Similarly for containers.

>[...] The 
>problem with a library having its own types is you have to write glue 
>code (which is error prone and doesn't add value) unless the library 
>does every you will ever need, which is probably the reason why Qt 
>attempts to provide everything but the kitchen sink.

Qt is like emacs.  It has a tendency to want to become the only way
you interact with your computer :-).

I think some of this is historical evolution of the API and once it
has a certain momentum, people are loathe to give that up in favor of
something else that (as you say) does exactly the same thing.  The
biggest downside of all of that is the maintenance surface for the Qt
developers, but they seem to get funding for it.

>> The key thing you're all missing when you list GUI libraries for these
>> other languages is THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE STANDARD.  Sometimes this is
>> because there is no standard for the language, or because the standard
>> only specifies the language and not any pile of libraries on top).  C#
>> standard doesn't specify the .NET Framework, which is a pile of libraries
>> from Microsoft.  And so-on.
>
>Strawman argument. I'm not arguing for having a C++ UI library in the 
>standard. I'm arguing for a UI library that smoothly interfaces with the 
>types provided by the standard library.

Well, that is what *you* are arguing for, but it wasn't the statement
that started this whole thread.  Please re-examine the subject line of
this thread.  The original poster linked to a blog post listing all
the stuff proposed for the C++17 standard so far and lamented that the
standard didn't have a GUI library.  *That* is what I'm responding to.

>> My point is that these other languages are doing just fine,
>> thank you, without "standardizing" a GUI toolkit.
>
>Unlike C++ many programming languages, like C#, have one or only a very 
>few "defacto" UI libraries that do interface smoothly with the types in 
>standard library that comes with the language.
>
>> So is C++.
>
>If you just need an UI, C++ is rarely the best option IMO.
>
>> There is no need for a GUI toolkit in the C++ standard because we
>> already have defacto standards that are serving the need just fine.
>
>Notice the words "defacto" and "standards" . Now think about that for a 
>moment (hint: the latter word is plural).

Yeah, there are 2, maybe 3 if you count MFC.  Nothing else has enough
brain share or deployed market share to even count as anything close
to a defacto standard.

>> I could understand this clamor for a GUI toolkit if there was nothing
>> available and there was a huge screaming void, but there have been
>> C++ GUI toolkit libraries since 1988 when InterViews was described
>> and that was done straight on top of Xlib, which was a C API.
>> <http://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/cs257/archive/mark-linton/interviews.pdf>
>
>Again strawman argument.

No, not a straw man argument, because I am stating this as a hypothetical
reason for why I would understand the clamor.  I know what a straw man
argument is and this isn't one.  If anything your response is a straw
man argument, LOL.

>No one is claiming there are no UI toolkits for 
>C++,

I never said that they were claiming this.  This is where you create
your own straw man argument in response to my explicitly hypothetical
statement.
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
     The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
         The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
  Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41301

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 6:54:39 PM UTC-6, Richard wrote:

Richard,

Please don't swear here.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41302

On 28/02/2016 01:25, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 6:54:39 PM UTC-6, Richard wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> Please don't swear here.

'This video may contain sexual swearwords, I'm afraid. There are 28 
'fucks'. Including that one 29. Ah, fuck it, make it 30.' -- Paul Calf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42UCpOzTbNU

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41303

Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes:

> On 28/02/2016 01:25, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 6:54:39 PM UTC-6, Richard wrote:
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Please don't swear here.
>
> 'This video may contain sexual swearwords, I'm afraid. There are 28
> fucks'. Including that one 29. Ah, fuck it, make it 30.' -- Paul Calf
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42UCpOzTbNU
>
> /Flibble

"As such this video may contain frequent sexual swearwords, such as
 bollocks, and wanke..."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15niBO3ZaQo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41319

On 28/02/2016 07:33, Gareth Owen wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 28/02/2016 01:25, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 6:54:39 PM UTC-6, Richard wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard,
>>>
>>> Please don't swear here.
>>
>> 'This video may contain sexual swearwords, I'm afraid. There are 28
>> fucks'. Including that one 29. Ah, fuck it, make it 30.' -- Paul Calf
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42UCpOzTbNU
>>
>> /Flibble
>
> "As such this video may contain frequent sexual swearwords, such as
>   bollocks, and wanke..."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15niBO3ZaQo

Interesting that "wanker" is acceptable on the BBC whilst, I think, 
"cunt" is not but this is probably due to the fact that "cunt" is the 
strongest swear word in the English language.  ITV dubbed out the "cunt" 
in "Can I get any of you cunts a drink?" when they showed Shaun Of The 
Dead once.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41321

Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes:

> Interesting that "wanker" is acceptable on the BBC whilst, I think,
> "cunt" is not but this is probably due to the fact that "cunt" is the
> strongest swear word in the English language.  

Well, there's no flat list of "allowed v. not allowed".  The context is
taken into consideration.  I do remember ITV once replacing the word
"Penis" with "Twinkie" in Ghostbusters, tho.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41323

Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 28/02/2016 07:33, Gareth Owen wrote:
>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 28/02/2016 01:25, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 6:54:39 PM UTC-6, Richard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Richard,
>>>>
>>>> Please don't swear here.
>>>
>>> 'This video may contain sexual swearwords, I'm afraid. There are 28
>>> fucks'. Including that one 29. Ah, fuck it, make it 30.' -- Paul Calf
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42UCpOzTbNU
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> "As such this video may contain frequent sexual swearwords, such as
>>    bollocks, and wanke..."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15niBO3ZaQo
>
> Interesting that "wanker" is acceptable on the BBC whilst, I think,
> "cunt" is not but this is probably due to the fact that "cunt" is the
> strongest swear word in the English language.  ITV dubbed out the "cunt"
> in "Can I get any of you cunts a drink?" when they showed Shaun Of The
> Dead once.

Before or after The Thick of It?

This one is still hard to best:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaY7VTftPdY

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41304

Am 28.02.16 um 02:25 schrieb woodbrian77@gmail.com:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 6:54:39 PM UTC-6, Richard wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> Please don't swear here.
>

I don't understand, why you oppose against fucking. It is the one thing 
through which we all were made. It is scientifically proven the cause of 
all our being.

	Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41327

On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 09:19:10 +0100, Christian Gollwitzer
<auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:

>Am 28.02.16 um 02:25 schrieb woodbrian77@gmail.com:
>> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 6:54:39 PM UTC-6, Richard wrote:
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Please don't swear here.
>>
>
>I don't understand, why you oppose against fucking. It is the one thing 
>through which we all were made. It is scientifically proven the cause of 
>all our being.
>
>	Christian

I think this might go back to the myth of Adam and Eve and original
sin. They were both given life without fucking being involved. Then
they ate of the tree of knowledge and were both fucked from that day
forward. Damned by God and driven from Eden, it's now a sin in the
eyes of religious fanatics to eat the wrong foods, fuck, wank off,
fuck thy neighbor's wife or do anything you fucking like of which the
pious might disapprove.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41334

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 3:19:24 AM UTC-5, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> Am 28.02.16 um 02:25 schrieb woodbrian77@gmail.com:
> >
> > Please don't swear here.
> >
> I don't understand, why you oppose against fucking.

Just guessing, but I don't think he's objecting to the word as such, I think 
what he's objecting to is the dilution of the word, such as in "Fuck!" after 
hitting your thumb with a hammer. The counter argument, of course, is that 
research shows that the hypoalgesic effect of swearing can help reduce the 
sensation of pain, c.f https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoalgesic_effect_of_swearing.

Daniel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41335

On 29/02/16 04:03, Daniel wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 3:19:24 AM UTC-5, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>> Am 28.02.16 um 02:25 schrieb woodbrian77@gmail.com:
>>>
>>> Please don't swear here.
>>>
>> I don't understand, why you oppose against fucking.
> 
> Just guessing, but I don't think he's objecting to the word as such, I think 
> what he's objecting to is the dilution of the word, such as in "Fuck!" after 
> hitting your thumb with a hammer. The counter argument, of course, is that 
> research shows that the hypoalgesic effect of swearing can help reduce the 
> sensation of pain, c.f https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoalgesic_effect_of_swearing.
> 

You mean you think he'd be happy with swear words as long as they are
used solely for their literal meanings?  I believe that would apply to
religious terms - I'm sure he has nothing against saying "Jesus" in
church, while objecting to its use as a hypoalgesic.  I really don't
think that applies to "fuck", however.

No, I think Brian just has a particularly extreme view on swearing out
of context.  Most of us have unwritten rules as to when we think
swearing is appropriate or not.  When we watch a stand-up comedian, we
expect a good deal of colourful language.  But we would be surprised to
hear a newsreader tell us "the economy has gone to fuck", even if it is
a clear, accurate and easily understood news item.  And I think most of
us here feel that Usenet posts typically don't warrant the emphasis of
swearing - but the occasional light swear is fine.  There are other
newsgroups were some posters are, quite frankly, unpleasant to read.

What distinguishes Brian is that he invariably reacts with a pointless
complaint for every tiny swear word that is usually unnoticed by anyone
else.  And his complaints are invariably followed by someone else adding
more swearing, just to bug him - he never seems to learn, and his
complaint posts are far more annoying than any swearing in this newsgroup.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41337

On 29.02.2016 09:04, David Brown wrote:
> [snip] his complaints are invariably followed by someone else adding
> more swearing, just to bug him - he never seems to learn,

There is the question of who is training whom. Pavlov's dog trained 
Pavlov to ring a bell at feeding time. As a reward to Pavlov the dog 
simply salivated each time Pavlov rang the bell at feeding time, and 
after a few weeks or months Pavlov would ring the bell /every/ feeding time.

But while psychologists are so easy to train that even a quite famous 
one could be trained by a dog, programmers who are Usenet denizens...

Well. Still. The question is open.


Cheers,

- Alf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41338

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 5:21:41 AM UTC-5, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

> Pavlov's dog trained Pavlov to ring a bell at feeding time. As a reward to 
> Pavlov the dog simply salivated each time Pavlov rang the bell at feeding 
> time.
> 
As my background is in economics, I've always viewed the behavior of Skinner 
and his rat as a freely entered into agreement: I'll give you food pellets 
in exchange for you pull on a lever. I prefer that interpretation to that of
stimulus-responsibus.

> But while psychologists are so easy to train 

My sister tells me that her psychology classmates successfully trained their
professor to stop pacing at the lectern, by putting down their notebooks and 
pens and affecting disinterest whenever she stepped beyond a prescribed 
boundary. Over time they narrowed the boundary, until stationary.

Daniel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41348

On 2/29/2016 2:46 AM, Daniel wrote:

> My sister tells me that her psychology classmates successfully trained their
> professor to stop pacing at the lectern, by putting down their notebooks and
> pens and affecting disinterest whenever she stepped beyond a prescribed
> boundary. Over time they narrowed the boundary, until stationary.
>

I thought that was an urban legend.   I've seen it many times on
the net.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41352

On 01/03/16 07:19, red floyd wrote:
> On 2/29/2016 2:46 AM, Daniel wrote:
> 
>> My sister tells me that her psychology classmates successfully trained
>> their
>> professor to stop pacing at the lectern, by putting down their
>> notebooks and
>> pens and affecting disinterest whenever she stepped beyond a prescribed
>> boundary. Over time they narrowed the boundary, until stationary.
>>
> 
> I thought that was an urban legend.   I've seen it many times on
> the net.
> 

Maybe the sister's /real/ psychology trick was training her brother to
believe in that urban legend :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41358

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 1:19:30 AM UTC-5, red floyd wrote:
> 
> I thought that was an urban legend.   I've seen it many times on
> the net.

My sister's class accomplished this sometime in the late 1970's, in a psychology class at the University of Western Ontario. It was one of the things that students did at the time.

Daniel 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41350

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Dear brainless piece of wood: fuck off
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
     The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
         The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
  Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#41360

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 12:58:18 AM UTC-6, Richard wrote:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
> 
> Dear 

"Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my 
weaknesses, so that Messiah's/Christ's power may rest 
on me.  That is why, for Messiah's sake, I delight in 
weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, 
in difficulties.  For when I am weak, then I am strong."  
2nd Corinthians 12:9-10

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web