Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25838
| From | Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Java vs C++ |
| Date | 2011-02-06 12:57 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <iimnes$dh2$1@news.eternal-september.org> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <4d4d60dc$0$23763$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4d4d8322$0$41117$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <iil53i$q34$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iil5ed$10m$1@news.eternal-september.org> <iimf47$soo$1@news.belwue.de> |
On 02/06/2011 10:35 AM, Thomas Richter wrote: > Joshua Cranmer wrote: >> Templates in C++ are basically advanced macros--each invocation of a >> template type regenerates the class, so a Foo<int> and a Foo<double> >> are two completely different things. > > That's much more than a macro could do. Templates are a language of its > own, include syntax checks, etc. Quite unlike macros, they do not > substitute text patterns. Templates allow meta-programming, i.e. you can > use the compiler to generate code. And, of course, templates are quite > complex - very unlike the simple-minded preprocessor. It is the code generation that I'm referring to as "an advanced macro". It's a macro generator that understands types and is heavily integrated with the syntax of C++, but it is basically a way to automatically generate code. > I beg your pardon? C++ allows nested templates since C++99 and before. > The only issue here is a notational one, namely that you had to write > A<B<C> > (note the space behind B<C>) to avoid >> being parsed as a > token (shifting, namely). That is the only thing that got fixed in > C++0x, not nesting templates which is part of the language since C++99. I was specifically referring to the ability to use >> instead of > >. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Java vs C++ Silvio <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-02-05 18:04 +0100
Re: Java vs C++ Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-02-07 16:21 +0800
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 12:28 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 09:22 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-07 17:25 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 16:08 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 12:24 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:03 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 21:18 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 21:26 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:15 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:55 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-02-06 19:54 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:50 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-02-07 15:54 +0800
Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-07 01:04 +0100
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:26 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 19:09 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-07 07:29 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-06 22:52 -0800
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 13:32 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-06 16:35 +0100
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:51 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 22:06 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:01 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-07 14:53 +0100
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 19:52 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-06 13:09 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-07 00:55 +0100
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:00 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 21:20 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:52 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 21:25 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:29 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-07 00:57 +0100
Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 12:57 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 15:22 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-06 08:11 -0800
Re: Java vs C++ Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-07 04:41 +0100
Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 21:12 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 12:26 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 15:27 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-06 16:45 +0100
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:51 -0500
csiph-web