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


Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25930

Re: Java vs C++

From Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject Re: Java vs C++
Date 2011-02-06 21:18 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <iinkpv$tbg$1@news.eternal-september.org> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <iil74u$rac$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4f042b$0$23753$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iinaj7$2up$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4f47bb$0$23760$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iinjsv$7j3$11@lust.ihug.co.nz>

Show all headers | View raw


On 02/06/2011 09:03 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<4d4f47bb$0$23760$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> C++ will generate two classes with two sets of code.
>>
>> (at least that is what common compilers do - I don't know if
>> the standard actually requires it to)
>
> See, it’s clear you’re hung up on specifics of particular implementations,
> not on how the language feature is defined at all.

No, it's in the definition of C++ templates. And I quote §14, clause 1:
A template defines a family of classes, functions, or concept maps, or 
an alias for a family of types.

As far as the standard is concerned, Foo<int> and Foo<long> would be 
very distinct types. It might be that the compiler makes them one single 
entity, but it can only do that under §1.9, clause 1:

The semantic descriptions in this International Standard define a 
parameterized nondeterministic abstract machine. This International 
Standard places no requirement on the structure of conforming 
implementations. In particular, they need not copy or emulate the 
structure of the abstract machine. Rather, conforming implementations 
are required to emulate (only) the observable behavior of the abstract 
machine as explained below.

i.e., "you don't have to actually implement this specification so long 
as a valid program can't tell that you aren't."

See, it's clear you really haven't read the specs you're trying to 
language lawyer with us on.

-- 
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 | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar


Thread

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