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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #121676

Re: Why is Usenet dead?

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:58:48 -0000 (UTC)
Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:43:27 +0100
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
> >continuous supply of people who can write good C code.  Far too many 
> >people who program in C don't do so very well - those people would
> >be better off programming in some other language.  
> 
> Often they're C++ programmers who didn't start out in C and so never
> had to learn the messy world of pointers, managing memory yourself
> with malloc+free, writing your own containers from scratch (the
> number of times I've had to re-implement a doubly linked list when
> using pure C back in the day I've lost count of), varargs (though I
> still use them in C++), scanf() etc.
> 

scanf() is as bad idea in C as it is in any other language.
When in C, always, but always, use strtol/strtod instead. Did I say
"always"?
std::from_chars() family, relatively recently added to C++ is a little
better functionally (not infected by locals), but worse because of
religious decision to use polymorphism in interface. Another minor
defect is use of reference.

Reimplementing double-linked list is fine if all you need is
double-linked list. It does not take more than 20 minutes and typically
you end up with code that fits requirements better than when you
take it from somebody else.
Now, std::vector is a different story. It has real value and not
worth reimplementing. And not only due to functionality it provides,
but but also because people that read your code has easier time
understanding your intentions. Even more so std:map/std::set and
std:unordered_map.

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Why is Usenet dead? Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-16 10:47 +0000
  Re: Why is Usenet dead? ImperiusDamian <dgwrightauthor@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 23:59 -0500
  Re: Why is Usenet dead? Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> - 2025-02-17 22:34 +0100
    Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-18 08:22 +0000
      Re: Why is Usenet dead? Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-02-18 14:21 -0500
        Re: Why is Usenet dead? Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-18 20:23 +0000
        Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-19 08:25 +0000
          Re: Why is Usenet dead? Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-02-19 10:29 -0500
            Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-19 15:41 +0000
            Re: Why is Usenet dead? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-19 16:43 +0100
              Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-19 15:58 +0000
                Re: Why is Usenet dead? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-02-19 19:15 +0200
                Re: Why is Usenet dead? Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-19 18:14 +0000
                Re: Why is Usenet dead? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-02-19 18:20 +0000
                Re: Why is Usenet dead? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-02-19 20:59 +0200
                Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-20 08:51 +0000
                Re: Why is Usenet dead? Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-20 17:39 +0000
                Re: Why is Usenet dead? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-02-20 22:39 +0200
                Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-21 10:24 +0000
                Re: Why is Usenet dead? Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-21 12:13 +0000
                Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-21 12:25 +0000
                Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-21 10:23 +0000
                Re: Why is Usenet dead? Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-21 12:12 +0000

csiph-web