Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #5014 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-05-16 10:08 -0500 |
| Last post | 2011-06-29 23:23 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 219 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Why C++ is vastly superior to C Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-05-16 10:08 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "crea" <no@invalid.com> - 2011-05-16 16:13 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-16 17:26 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 21:21 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-17 08:57 +1200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 00:12 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> - 2011-05-16 09:29 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-16 17:37 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-05-16 10:51 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-17 06:12 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-17 14:12 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 00:30 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-21 11:19 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 23:41 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-05-23 00:41 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-23 01:02 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-23 06:10 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-24 01:01 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-23 05:59 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-16 17:24 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-05-16 12:36 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> - 2011-05-16 11:25 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-16 21:16 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 21:11 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> - 2011-05-16 14:12 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 00:48 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-20 23:36 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 12:25 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 08:22 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-16 21:00 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-20 23:33 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-16 18:53 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 12:05 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-17 11:09 +1200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-20 23:58 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-17 01:23 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 00:47 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-17 07:34 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 11:55 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 16:30 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 00:46 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 01:10 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-05-17 11:12 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Gert-Jan de Vos <gert-jan.de.vos@onsneteindhoven.nl> - 2011-05-17 14:30 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-18 16:37 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-05-18 12:04 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-05-20 10:11 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 00:21 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-21 08:20 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 08:33 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-05-23 13:32 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-24 00:36 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-05-24 12:26 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 22:34 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-21 18:27 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-21 18:43 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-21 21:48 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-05-21 22:18 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-22 02:31 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-05-22 11:54 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-22 12:23 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-05-22 14:22 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-23 12:01 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-05-21 22:45 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-22 08:56 +1200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-05-21 16:08 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 13:39 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-22 02:59 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 13:24 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 00:12 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 00:10 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-05-18 02:38 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 00:03 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 12:21 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 08:38 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-17 06:37 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 00:28 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Isaac Gouy <igouy2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-17 08:33 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-20 23:43 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 00:47 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 08:41 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-21 08:22 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 08:44 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-21 18:34 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 23:37 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-22 05:57 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 01:22 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-24 15:54 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-24 15:58 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 17:19 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 14:09 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 15:00 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> - 2011-05-26 00:02 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-26 09:12 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 00:31 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-05-26 04:53 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 05:24 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-05-26 23:32 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-05-26 23:40 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-26 18:05 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-26 19:10 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-27 00:15 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-05-26 16:29 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 00:57 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-27 07:56 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-27 09:41 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 01:20 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 01:51 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-27 11:01 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-28 11:35 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 14:41 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 15:42 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:30 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:27 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-05-28 07:55 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-28 19:19 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 22:46 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 23:27 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-05-27 01:12 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-27 10:24 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 01:44 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 10:28 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Michael Doubez <michael.doubez@free.fr> - 2011-05-26 00:34 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-26 10:22 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 00:42 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 00:49 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 22:57 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 22:50 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-05-26 08:53 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 02:16 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:05 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-26 06:01 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:11 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:05 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-26 18:28 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 00:42 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:13 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C glen stark <mail@dontspammebro.glenstark.net> - 2011-06-25 12:07 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 00:40 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 00:30 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 07:20 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:14 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 23:39 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Michael Doubez <michael.doubez@free.fr> - 2011-05-26 00:58 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:19 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 17:42 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-05-24 23:38 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 11:15 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-05-25 13:07 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 05:12 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 15:31 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:33 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-05-25 23:21 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 22:44 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-20 23:49 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-20 23:31 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-16 17:25 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 13:01 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-05-26 11:01 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-17 09:02 +1200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-16 21:16 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-17 09:35 +1200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-05-16 17:11 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-16 16:09 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-17 11:37 +1200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 16:45 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-17 08:20 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Paul Brettschneider <paul.brettschneider@yahoo.fr> - 2011-05-17 15:43 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-05-17 09:59 -0400
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-17 07:09 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-17 07:14 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-17 16:59 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 01:06 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Paul Brettschneider <paul.brettschneider@yahoo.fr> - 2011-05-17 16:31 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-17 16:55 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-05-17 13:45 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-17 14:18 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-17 11:12 +1200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-17 06:46 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 01:14 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-21 09:09 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 08:46 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 01:14 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 08:57 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 23:48 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-21 08:25 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 09:08 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-05-21 18:43 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 23:55 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-05-22 21:58 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-22 23:10 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-23 16:14 +1200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-22 23:38 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-23 16:41 +1200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 00:19 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 07:35 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-17 16:13 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-17 08:26 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 01:18 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 15:38 +0800
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 01:27 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-05-18 19:55 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-05-19 13:50 +0900
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> - 2011-05-20 02:46 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 03:49 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 01:25 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 12:08 +0100
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 09:19 -0500
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Michael Tsang <miklcct@gmail.com> - 2011-05-19 20:26 +0800
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 13:28 +0100
Re: Why a skyscraper is vastly superior to a home jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-05-23 22:18 +0200
Re: Why a skyscraper is vastly superior to a home "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-24 01:23 -0500
Re: Why a skyscraper is vastly superior to a home "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-24 01:30 -0500
Re: Why a skyscraper is vastly superior to a home gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 00:44 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Virchanza <virtual@lavabit.com> - 2011-06-29 13:37 -0700
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-06-29 23:16 +0200
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-06-30 04:59 +0000
Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-29 23:23 -0700
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 10:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Why C++ is vastly superior to C |
| Message-ID | <iqremk$ltg$1@dont-email.me> |
Why C++ is vastly superior to C:
http://warp.povusers.org/programming/cplusplus_superior_to_c.html
"In conclusion, the reason why C is so vastly inferior to C++ as
described in this article can be summarized with one single sentence:
C has no support for RAII nor templates, while C++ does. That's two
of the most important features that make C++ by far the superior
language."
Lynn
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "crea" <no@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 16:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obbAp.1300$Wy2.344@newsfe23.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5014 |
"Lynn McGuire" <lmc@winsim.com> wrote in message news:iqremk$ltg$1@dont-email.me... > Why C++ is vastly superior to C: > http://warp.povusers.org/programming/cplusplus_superior_to_c.html > > "In conclusion, the reason why C is so vastly inferior to C++ as > described in this article can be summarized with one single sentence: > C has no support for RAII nor templates, while C++ does. That's two > of the most important features that make C++ by far the superior > language." the main thing is the object oriented approach, i guess. Also many improved version of functions
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 17:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iqrfnh$1rsc$1@news.ett.com.ua> |
| In reply to | #5014 |
"Lynn McGuire" <lmc@winsim.com> > Why C++ is vastly superior to C: > http://warp.povusers.org/programming/cplusplus_superior_to_c.html > > "In conclusion, the reason why C is so vastly inferior to C++ as > described in this article can be summarized with one single sentence: > C has no support for RAII nor templates, while C++ does. That's two > of the most important features that make C++ by far the superior > language." Quite so. Another "most important" feature was parting with "locals at block start", but it got into C99 in the mantime. (too bad that real-world C is still at C90, a decade+ after the last revision, and massive projects still stick to that old known bug generator. :( )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 21:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4dd1872c$0$31208$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #5016 |
Balog Pal wrote: > Quite so. Another "most important" feature was parting with "locals at > block start", but it got into C99 in the mantime. (too bad that > real-world C is still at C90, a decade+ after the last revision, and > massive projects still stick to that old known bug generator. :( ) What do you mean by "real-world C is still at C90"? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-17 08:57 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <93dhd2FlpiU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #5034 |
On 05/17/11 08:21 AM, Rui Maciel wrote: > Balog Pal wrote: > >> Quite so. Another "most important" feature was parting with "locals at >> block start", but it got into C99 in the mantime. (too bad that >> real-world C is still at C90, a decade+ after the last revision, and >> massive projects still stick to that old known bug generator. :( ) > > What do you mean by "real-world C is still at C90"? C99 compilers are by no means universal. A lot of embedded (the majority of C projects) projects are still stuck with C90 tools. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-18 00:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4dd300c2$0$31198$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #5035 |
Ian Collins wrote: > On 05/17/11 08:21 AM, Rui Maciel wrote: >> Balog Pal wrote: >> >>> Quite so. Another "most important" feature was parting with "locals at >>> block start", but it got into C99 in the mantime. (too bad that >>> real-world C is still at C90, a decade+ after the last revision, and >>> massive projects still stick to that old known bug generator. :( ) >> >> What do you mean by "real-world C is still at C90"? > > C99 compilers are by no means universal. A lot of embedded (the > majority of C projects) projects are still stuck with C90 tools. > You have a point. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 09:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0310eb7-ebaa-4935-8979-e907f9d64e55@x6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5014 |
On 16 touko, 18:08, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote: > "In conclusion, the reason why C is so vastly inferior to C++ as > described in this article can be summarized with one single sentence: > C has no support for RAII nor templates, while C++ does. That's two > of the most important features You can live without templates, it's the least important feature of C++ and people constantly over/misuse it. Most important feature is class programming: instances, encapsulation and inheritance, the OOP basics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 17:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Q6udnQiaa-BTz0zQnZ2dnUVZ7s2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5018 |
On 16/05/2011 17:29, Krice wrote: > On 16 touko, 18:08, Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote: >> "In conclusion, the reason why C is so vastly inferior to C++ as >> described in this article can be summarized with one single sentence: >> C has no support for RAII nor templates, while C++ does. That's two >> of the most important features > > You can live without templates, it's the least important feature > of C++ and people constantly over/misuse it. Most important feature > is class programming: instances, encapsulation and inheritance, > the OOP basics. I disagree; generic programming is just as important as object oriented programming. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 10:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f3ecaa5-c0ee-4258-a86b-2933a4bf33bb@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5020 |
On May 16, 7:37 pm, Leigh Johnston <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16/05/2011 17:29, Krice wrote:
>
> > On 16 touko, 18:08, Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> >> "In conclusion, the reason why C is so vastly inferior to C++ as
> >> described in this article can be summarized with one single sentence:
> >> C has no support for RAII nor templates, while C++ does. That's two
> >> of the most important features
>
> > You can live without templates, it's the least important feature
> > of C++ and people constantly over/misuse it. Most important feature
> > is class programming: instances, encapsulation and inheritance,
> > the OOP basics.
>
> I disagree; generic programming is just as important as object oriented
> programming.
+1.
Encapsulation can be done well in C. Just like the FILE* in C library.
You know nothing about it but the functions ("methods") with what you
can manipulate one. Similarly abstract interfaces and polymorphism can
be implemented in C with function pointers. There is some semantic
overhead but that can be reduced with macros. It is easy to write
small quick programs in pure C.
C++ however scales well. Templates in interface simplify integration
of your code with a library by huge margin. The big legacy C++
libraries have gradually increased presence of templates in their
interface. In boost and in Loki the templates are sometimes overused
but that is because the authors were curious and like to explore the
possibilities.
RAII is great way to reduce the need for garbage collection. Being
careful you create no garbage. The usual garbage collection takes care
of least important resource ... the memory. I have started to hate
Windows lately because some of the garbage collected crap has left
files open and so i can't delete those without closing all the
applications. Also the applications start back up slowly like snails.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-17 06:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82985032-fd4d-4b0a-9623-27cf401ba2e3@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5020 |
On May 16, 12:37 pm, Leigh Johnston <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote: > On 16/05/2011 17:29, Krice wrote: > > > On 16 touko, 18:08, Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote: > >> "In conclusion, the reason why C is so vastly inferior to C++ as > >> described in this article can be summarized with one single sentence: > >> C has no support for RAII nor templates, while C++ does. That's two > >> of the most important features > > > You can live without templates, it's the least important feature > > of C++ and people constantly over/misuse it. Most important feature > > is class programming: instances, encapsulation and inheritance, > > the OOP basics. > > I disagree; generic programming is just as important as object oriented > programming. Agreed. Generic programming is at least as important and much more unique to C++ (relative to C) than OOP. Although, I would say that the C++ automatic constructor/destructor paradigm (which was a C++ innovation as far as I know?) is also extremely valuable. Function overloading was also a major advance over traditional C. KHD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-17 14:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4dd2823f$0$2864$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #5079 |
Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > Function > overloading was also a major advance over traditional C. Function overloading is especially important in generic programming. In fact, many of the things that C++ adds compared to C are valuable (if not even mandatory) for generic programming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-21 00:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ir7m46$29f$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5079 |
Keith H Duggar wrote: > [...] I would say that > the C++ automatic constructor/destructor paradigm (which was a C++ > innovation as far as I know?) is also extremely valuable. Innovation? Looks like a quite nice and convenient side-effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-21 11:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9928ec8-7387-4b56-a1eb-6e7702d23e31@32g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5238 |
On May 21, 1:30 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: > Keith H Duggar wrote: > > [...] I would say that > > the C++ automatic constructor/destructor paradigm (which was a C++ > > innovation as far as I know?) is also extremely valuable. > > Innovation? Looks like a quite nice and convenient side-effect. Side-effect of what? Which languages do you know of that had automatic deterministic destructors prior to C++? KHD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-21 23:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ira50p$mjq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5281 |
Keith H Duggar wrote: > On May 21, 1:30 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: >> Keith H Duggar wrote: >>> [...] I would say that >>> the C++ automatic constructor/destructor paradigm (which was a C++ >>> innovation as far as I know?) is also extremely valuable. >> >> Innovation? Looks like a quite nice and convenient side-effect. > > Side-effect of what? Of the quest to make user-defined types behave like built-in types. > Which languages do you know of that > had automatic deterministic destructors prior to C++? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-23 00:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Xns9EEE587B67BD4myfirstnameosapriee@216.196.109.131> |
| In reply to | #5315 |
"MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> wrote in news:ira50p$mjq$2@dont-email.me: > Keith H Duggar wrote: >> On May 21, 1:30 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: >>> Keith H Duggar wrote: >>>> [...] I would say that >>>> the C++ automatic constructor/destructor paradigm (which was a C++ >>>> innovation as far as I know?) is also extremely valuable. >>> >>> Innovation? Looks like a quite nice and convenient side-effect. >> >> Side-effect of what? > > Of the quest to make user-defined types behave like built-in types. Built-in types don't have destructors, do they?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-23 01:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <irct8p$v4d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5352 |
Paavo Helde wrote: > "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> wrote in news:ira50p$mjq$2@dont-email.me: > >> Keith H Duggar wrote: >>> On May 21, 1:30 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: >>>> Keith H Duggar wrote: >>>>> [...] I would say that >>>>> the C++ automatic constructor/destructor paradigm (which was a C++ >>>>> innovation as far as I know?) is also extremely valuable. >>>> >>>> Innovation? Looks like a quite nice and convenient side-effect. >>> >>> Side-effect of what? >> >> Of the quest to make user-defined types behave like built-in types. > > Built-in types don't have destructors, do they? You're missing the point. To endow user-defined types (UDTs) with reasonable lifetime semantics, some kind of setup/teardown construct(s) are required. Constructors/destructors are more like a discovery than an invention.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-23 06:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5357c219-6c8b-4395-bfaa-55a9e8418dce@k17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5353 |
On May 23, 2:02 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: > Paavo Helde wrote: > > "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote innews:ira50p$mjq$2@dont-email.me: > > >> Keith H Duggar wrote: > >>> On May 21, 1:30 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: > >>>> Keith H Duggar wrote: > >>>>> [...] I would say that > >>>>> the C++ automatic constructor/destructor paradigm (which was a C++ > >>>>> innovation as far as I know?) is also extremely valuable. > > >>>> Innovation? Looks like a quite nice and convenient side-effect. > > >>> Side-effect of what? > > >> Of the quest to make user-defined types behave like built-in types. > > > Built-in types don't have destructors, do they? > > You're missing the point. To endow user-defined types (UDTs) with > reasonable lifetime semantics, some kind of setup/teardown construct(s) > are required. Constructors/destructors are more like a discovery than an > invention. Presuming that you would agree C structs have "reasonable lifetime semantics" and that they have no destructors, it seems to me quite a stretch to say destructors were a "discovery". Anyhow, whether they were a "discovery" or "innovation", C does not have user defined automatic constructors/destructors. C++ does. And to me that was a significant advance. One that proved more powerful and useful than I'm guessing was even realized at the time. KHD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-24 01:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <irfhj1$ka9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5363 |
Keith H Duggar wrote: > On May 23, 2:02 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: >> Paavo Helde wrote: >>> "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote innews:ira50p$mjq$2@dont-email.me: >> >>>> Keith H Duggar wrote: >>>>> On May 21, 1:30 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: >>>>>> Keith H Duggar wrote: >>>>>>> [...] I would say that >>>>>>> the C++ automatic constructor/destructor paradigm (which was a >>>>>>> C++ innovation as far as I know?) is also extremely valuable. >> >>>>>> Innovation? Looks like a quite nice and convenient side-effect. >> >>>>> Side-effect of what? >> >>>> Of the quest to make user-defined types behave like built-in types. >> >>> Built-in types don't have destructors, do they? >> >> You're missing the point. To endow user-defined types (UDTs) with >> reasonable lifetime semantics, some kind of setup/teardown >> construct(s) are required. Constructors/destructors are more like a >> discovery than an invention. > > Presuming On "presumption", yeah, I'm gonna write a book about that, "soon". Maybe I'll call it "C++ Gotchas", or something. Yeah, I'm gonna write that one. Maybe you are one of Eric Weis's minions? (Oh yeah, he got me "fair and square"). (For "the record": I don't hate him). > that you would agree I would "agree" (I think you will agree to this), that you should not get in my face and tell me what "would agree" upon. (Read: get the fuck out of my face, punk, I'm not your father). > C structs have "reasonable lifetime > semantics" and that they have no destructors, it seems to me quite > a stretch to say destructors were a "discovery". I'm a "language designer", in the sense that the "prevailing sense" makes no sense at all and I do it better. So I can't banter here with y'all language-lawyer-wannabes. You will live, you will die. You will have some span in between those 2 things. Those who want to establish a SUCK 3rd position, suck. > > Anyhow, whether they were a "discovery" or "innovation", C does not > have user defined automatic constructors/destructors. C does not have class objects. > C++ does. And > to me that was a significant advance. You don't know "advance". "Youth is wasted on the young". Why don't you go vote. I mean, fine. Vote. And while you are their, raise their flag (high). OOPs, the "FLAG", surely you know it. "Pledge of Allegience", recite now, so your computer file can be updated. Test (note that willing participant who "answers", will be held liable for his "freedom of speech"): What is a flag? Is a flag rape? Should flags be burned? Do you feel raped by a flag? Do you feel you will be draped by a flag? Do flags rape?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-23 05:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe5b57b5-03bf-439c-89cb-95f69f9db6a2@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5352 |
On May 23, 1:41 am, Paavo Helde <myfirstn...@osa.pri.ee> wrote: > "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote innews:ira50p$mjq$2@dont-email.me: > > > Keith H Duggar wrote: > >> On May 21, 1:30 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: > >>> Keith H Duggar wrote: > >>>> [...] I would say that > >>>> the C++ automatic constructor/destructor paradigm (which was a C++ > >>>> innovation as far as I know?) is also extremely valuable. > > >>> Innovation? Looks like a quite nice and convenient side-effect. > > >> Side-effect of what? > > > Of the quest to make user-defined types behave like built-in types. > > Built-in types don't have destructors, do they? In C they have neither constructors nor destructors. They begin life uninitialized (disregarding zero initialization of statics which is a different matter) and they meet a silent trivial end. KHD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 17:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4dd15de1$0$2834$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #5018 |
Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote: > On 16 touko, 18:08, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote: >> "In conclusion, the reason why C is so vastly inferior to C++ as >> described in this article can be summarized with one single sentence: >> C has no support for RAII nor templates, while C++ does. That's two >> of the most important features > > You can live without templates, it's the least important feature > of C++ and people constantly over/misuse it. Most important feature > is class programming: instances, encapsulation and inheritance, > the OOP basics. I disagree. Encapsulation and instantiation are extremely important, yes, but you can achieve that to a certain degree in C as well. Access rights might not be enforced by the language (except on the compilation unit level), but you can achieve this to a certain degree by agreement (iow. "don't touch anything inside this struct"). Yes, this is not perfect, but it's not catastrophical either. This is not the main reason why C is inferior to C++. Inheritance is useful in some situations, but it's far less useful than was thought at the height of the OOP craze in the 90's. It definitely has its uses, but it has its shortcomings as well. It is an important feature, but I would certainly not rank it higher than RAII and templates. As for templates, I fully disagree: A C++ without templates would be almost as horrible as C is. (RAII would still make it by far superior, but the lack of templates would be a huge setback nevertheless.) If you can live without templates, how would you implement the last challenge in the article (iow. making the example Matrix class generic, to support any numerical type, including those which do not behave like basic types)? On the same note, how would you make generic data containers and algorithms which are as efficient as possible? (Note their prominent absence in standard C; there's a reason for that.) Other programming languages manage by other means, but they often suffer from poorer efficiency (especially in the memory consumption department, sometimes also in the speed one).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web