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 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 12:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iqrnbb$kra$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5018 |
On 5/16/2011 11:29 AM, 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 could not live without the Standard Template Library. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 11:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd3d04ae-dbd9-45b7-8878-7d891c020c10@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5025 |
On 16 touko, 20:36, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote: > I could not live without the Standard Template Library. Mostly because core C++ doesn't have something like std::string or vector. If I need to write a template (beside using STL) I know there is something wrong with the class hierarchy. It's like using cast, you know it's a workaround to a design error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 21:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iqrt5n$2168$1@news.ett.com.ua> |
| In reply to | #5028 |
"Krice" <paulkp@mbnet.fi> > On 16 touko, 20:36, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote: >> I could not live without the Standard Template Library. > > Mostly because core C++ doesn't have something like std::string > or vector. String could very well be a simple class, but how do you create a good vector without templates? Do you suggest to go back to only have the "Object-based" polymorphic array? Even java failed miserably on that point, if you recall the hype raving that templates are not good and would never make it into a cool language of theirs. Finally generics were incorporated around 1.5 -- mainly to cover the mass problems with collections. :-) > If I need to write a template (beside using STL) > I know there is something wrong with the class hierarchy. The most ubiquitous problem with class hierarchy is thet you don't need one in the first place. Sure, having hierarchy is great for some particular cases, I both used and wrote such, but it is in minority by far. > It's like using cast, you know it's a workaround to a design error. I don't see any likeness. Hierarchy is good for runtime polymorphism, while templates cover the common case where the type is fixed at compile time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 21:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4dd184eb$0$31200$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #5028 |
Krice wrote: > Mostly because core C++ doesn't have something like std::string > or vector. Why would anyone extend the base language to incorporate something which is easily implemented (and, better yet, extendable) through other basic language constructs? > If I need to write a template (beside using STL) > I know there is something wrong with the class hierarchy. Do you know how I can tell you aren't a good programmer? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 14:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bccd19a7-29aa-462d-889a-910af5789e91@j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5033 |
On 16 touko, 23:11, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote: > Do you know how I can tell you aren't a good programmer? I'm the first person in the world who wrote a roguelike with zero bugs. A thing like that didn't even exist before I made that possible. I'm not good, I'm the best.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-17 00:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4dd1b7e4$0$31200$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #5039 |
Krice wrote: > On 16 touko, 23:11, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Do you know how I can tell you aren't a good programmer? > > I'm the first person in the world who wrote a roguelike with zero > bugs. > A thing like that didn't even exist before I made that possible. > I'm not good, I'm the best. And the most humble too, to boot. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-20 23:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ir7m41$29f$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5033 |
Rui Maciel wrote: > Krice wrote: > >> Mostly because core C++ doesn't have something like std::string >> or vector. > > Why would anyone extend the base language to incorporate something > which is easily implemented (and, better yet, extendable) through > other basic language constructs? > In attempt to achieve greater interoperability amongst programmers?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-21 12:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4dd7a11c$0$23410$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #5230 |
MikeP wrote: > In attempt to achieve greater interoperability amongst programmers? Why do you believe that using std::string hinders "interoperability amongst programmers"? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-21 08:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ir8hlk$k7d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5257 |
Rui Maciel wrote: > MikeP wrote: > >> In attempt to achieve greater interoperability amongst programmers? > > Why do you believe that using std::string hinders "interoperability > amongst programmers"? > Just the opposite. Maybe I misunderstood the other post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 21:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4dd19082$0$2855$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #5028 |
Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote: > If I need to write a template (beside using STL) > I know there is something wrong with the class hierarchy. It's > like using cast, you know it's a workaround to a design error. What happens when the STL is not enough? There are myriads of different data containers out there, and the STL only offers about 5 of them. Why is it a design error to make your libraries generic and reusable? That sounds to me like the exact opposite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-20 23:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ir7m40$29f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5025 |
Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 5/16/2011 11:29 AM, 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 could not live without the Standard Template Library. I can't live with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 18:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2011.05.16.17.52.49.672000@nowhere.com> |
| In reply to | #5018 |
On Mon, 16 May 2011 09:29:07 -0700, Krice wrote: > 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. Maybe for you. OTOH, if performance matters, templates are essential. And if performance doesn't matter, higher-level languages offer the OOP features with less hassle. IOW, if you don't need templates, you probably don't need C++ either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 12:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a5f986b-c0c5-44e6-8668-e5d0061bb99f@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5027 |
On May 16, 10:53 am, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2011 09:29:07 -0700, Krice wrote: > > 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. > > Maybe for you. OTOH, if performance matters, templates are essential. I want to emphasize this. Templates are nice for code reuse, but several posters ignored IMHO the most important aspect of their utility. Templates allow generic code and code reuse without runtime overhead. For too many people, and for some people with legitimate concerns, there is almost a knee-jerk fear of runtime overhead, and thus they would rather roll their own, every time, instead of use a standard library or well tested, well optimized, library solution, because of the overhead that using a non-template library would impose. Take C's sort. The comparator function is a function pointer, and the last I heard is that most compilers simply will not expand that inline, as opposed to C++ various sort functions which can be expanded inline.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-17 11:09 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <93dp63FlpiU12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #5029 |
On 05/17/11 10:58 AM, Stefan Ram wrote: > Joshua Maurice<joshuamaurice@gmail.com> writes: >> Take C's sort. The comparator function is a function pointer, >> and the last I heard is that most compilers simply will not >> expand that inline, as opposed to C++ various sort functions >> which can be expanded inline. > > According to > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php > > C++ is not much faster than C (the median value actually is > a little bit slower than C if I understand the table right), > and according to That, as ever, depends on what you are doing. > However, C++ is much more complicated and large than C. > Programmers have to learn exception-safe programming, the > rule of the three, references, König-lookup, soon rvalue > references ... No, they don't. They may have to if they are supporting legacy code that uses every feature under the sun (which tends to be written by novices keen to use them!). For new projects, they can choose a subset they are happy with. > up to the point where, AFAIK, the recent > draft of the language specification has more than 1000 > pages, not including the C spec it is based one. The complexity of any given problem is constant. Whether that complexity is hidden in a language or exposed user code is a choice. Most of the new features will remove complexity from user code. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-20 23:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ir7m43$29f$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5046 |
Ian Collins wrote: > On 05/17/11 10:58 AM, Stefan Ram wrote: >> However, C++ is much more complicated and large than C. >> Programmers have to learn exception-safe programming, the >> rule of the three, references, König-lookup, soon rvalue >> references ... > > No, they don't. They may have to if they are supporting legacy code > that uses every feature under the sun (which tends to be written by > novices keen to use them!). For new projects, they can choose a > subset they are happy with. Not really. The idioms have evolved for very good reasons. Not knowing how to write exception-safe code, for example, is indeed to not know how to program in C++, for writing unreliable software is not really doing much of anything but playing. > >> up to the point where, AFAIK, the recent >> draft of the language specification has more than 1000 >> pages, not including the C spec it is based one. > > The complexity of any given problem is constant. Whether that > complexity is hidden in a language or exposed user code is a choice. > Most of the new features will remove complexity from user code. Two things (there surely are more, and will be more, but just off the top of my head) that I appreciate from the new features and have helped me are: 1. 'auto': I now have for_each, yay! 2. That namespace-within-a-class-hierarchy-thing. Yay! No more virtual derivation to get around the diamond inheritance problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-17 01:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iqsblc$274g$1@news.ett.com.ua> |
| In reply to | #5029 |
"Stefan Ram" <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> > C++ is not much faster than C (the median value actually is > a little bit slower than C if I understand the table right), > and according to > > http://www.tiobe.com/content/paperinfo/tpci/images/tpci_trends.png > > , C++ has lost half of its »market share« in relation to C > since 2003. Market share? The png's title says "Community index".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-17 00:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4dd1b7a2$0$31200$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #5049 |
Balog Pal wrote: > Market share? The png's title says "Community index". And from the description of their accounting method it should read "web noise". Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-17 07:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4dd224ff$0$2816$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #5055 |
Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > the rise of objective C in recent > years due to products of a certain manufacturer You forget that you can write your iPhone programs in Objective C++, which means that you can write most of it in C++ and only what you must in C (ie. those parts which need to interact with the Cocoa Touch library). You can use full-fledged pure C++ libraries in your program. (And in fact, if your program is OpenGL ES based rather than Cocoa Touch based, you can skip writing any Objective C almost completely.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-17 11:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4dd25428$0$31197$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #5055 |
Stefan Ram wrote: > Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes: >>And from the description of their accounting method it should >>read "web noise". > > The curves, however, agree with what I observe elsewhere: > > The rise of Ruby in 2006, the rise of objective C in recent > years due to products of a certain manufacturer, a gradual > decline of Perl and so on. Certain, the data /is/ noisy, > but it cannot be all noise. I would apply some moving > average filter to the curves to make them more smooth. > > Here is another view from another source: > > http://www.google.com/trends?q=C+programming%2CC%2B%2B+programming > > . What do these curves mean? Random noise plus a systematic bias? If you take the time to learn how google trends works[1] you will realize that it only measures google search queries and the frequency that the topic is covered in google news stories. So, knowing that, when you run some tests you quickly find out that the results are meaningless in terms of any attempt to evaluate market share[2]. Rui Maciel [1] http://www.google.com/intl/en/trends/about.html [2] http://www.google.com/trends?q=Java%2C+C%2B%2B%2C+C%2C+ruby%2C+C%23&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 16:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <398a3487-73d0-410f-9138-c8188981798d@x38g2000pri.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5029 |
On May 16, 3:58 pm, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote: > Joshua Maurice <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> writes: > >Take C's sort. The comparator function is a function pointer, > >and the last I heard is that most compilers simply will not > >expand that inline, as opposed to C++ various sort functions > >which can be expanded inline. > > According to > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-languages-are... > > C++ is not much faster than C (the median value actually is > a little bit slower than C if I understand the table right), I would have assumed that we both knew: 1- Such measures are less than reliable. Specifically, to take a quote from that link "No. Which programming language implementations have the fastest benchmark programs?". 2- I did not make any claim that programs written in C++ are faster than programs written in C. I made the claim that in C++ you can have reusable code, such as containers, without overhead, and you cannot in C (short of evil preprocessor hackery). > and according to > > http://www.tiobe.com/content/paperinfo/tpci/images/tpci_trends.png > > , C++ has lost half of its market share in relation to C > since 2003. > > However, C++ is much more complicated and large than C. > Programmers have to learn exception-safe programming, the > rule of the three, references, K nig-lookup, soon rvalue > references ... up to the point where, AFAIK, the recent > draft of the language specification has more than 1000 > pages, not including the C spec it is based one. > > When the market share continues to decline, C++ will become > a legacy language of the 90s. That is an interesting proposition. However, I want to be clear that in this thread I have not made any sort of claim that programming in C+ + is faster, better, results in faster code, in better code, or whatever. PS: I may hold those beliefs, but I haven't made those claims in this thread. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web