Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #123511 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-03-05 15:19 -0600 |
| Last post | 2026-03-17 00:02 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 57 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
“Is C++ Dead?” Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-03-05 15:19 -0600
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-03-06 08:14 +0800
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-03-06 12:53 +0800
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-03-06 12:48 +0800
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-06 13:25 -0800
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-03-07 13:15 +0800
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-07 20:03 +0200
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 16:26 +0800
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-08 11:49 +0100
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 16:46 +0100
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-08 19:22 +0100
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 14:38 -0700
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 14:17 +0100
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-10 22:47 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 17:07 -0700
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 14:11 -0700
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-08 22:54 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> - 2026-03-09 08:27 +0100
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 17:36 -0500
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-10 13:27 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-03-15 19:13 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-15 19:40 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-15 21:15 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 18:15 -0500
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 17:33 -0500
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-03-16 00:28 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 00:53 +0800
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-03-16 10:31 -0400
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-16 17:56 +0200
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-03-16 17:06 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-03-16 23:00 -0400
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-03-18 00:20 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 19:09 +0100
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 14:21 -0500
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 20:53 +0100
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 13:28 -0700
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 16:45 -0500
Re: Re: “Is C++ Dead?” scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-18 21:24 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 16:41 -0500
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 19:58 -0700
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 00:33 -0500
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 22:50 -0700
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 10:40 +0100
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 12:26 -0700
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 10:28 +0100
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-19 10:20 +0100
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 12:31 -0700
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-10 13:21 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-03-12 19:46 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-14 23:35 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-03-15 13:35 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-15 15:37 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-03-15 17:58 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-15 22:23 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-16 15:34 +0000
Re: Re: “Is C++ Dead?” scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-16 15:58 +0000
Re: “Is C++ Dead?” Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-17 00:02 +0000
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-15 19:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10p70c5$27ou9$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #123530 |
Lynn McGuire <LynnMcGuire5@GMail.com> wrote: |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"On 3/9/2026 2:27 AM, Marcel Mueller wrote: | |[. . .] | |> C++ has become too complex for many programmers. [. . .] | |> [. . .] | |> [. . .] | |> [. . .] | |> [. . .] | |> | |> | |> Marcel | | | |If C++ is too complex for a programmer then the programmer is not a good | |programmer. | | | |[. . .] | |[. . .] | |[. . .] | | | |Lynn" | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| I joined the Association of C & C++ Users more than twenty-six years ago. I do not recall ever seeing Lynn McGuire listed in a membership directory thereof. I also do not recall any ACCU publication by her. Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Bjarne Stroustrup says "Within C++, there is a much smaller and cleaner language struggling to get out." Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Francis Glassborow publishes similarly? Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Eric Naggum published: that C++'s "unmanageable complexity has spawned more fear-preventing tools than any other language, but the solution should have been to create and use a language that does not overload the whole goddamn human."? Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Eric Naggum published: "I may be biased, but I tend to find a much lower tendency among female programmers to be dishonest about their skills, and thus do not say they know C++ when they are smart enough to realize that that would be a lie for all but perhaps 5 people on this planet."? Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Eric Naggum published: "C++ is a language strongly optimized for liars and people who go by guesswork and ignorance." Does Lynn McGuire believe that Bjarne Stroustrup; Francis Glassborow; and Eric Naggum are "not [. . .] good programmer"s? (S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-15 19:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10p7208$1c885$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123587 |
On 15/03/2026 19:13, Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester wrote: > Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Eric Naggum published: > "C++ is a language strongly optimized for liars and people who go by > guesswork and ignorance." Yes, it is optimised for humans. A language optimised for the alternative is called an algebra and it is an intermediate representation in a constraint language solver. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-15 21:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10p77gu$1eam9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123587 |
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 19:13:11 -0000 (UTC), Nioclás Pól Caileán de
Ghloucester wrote:
> Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Bjarne Stroustrup
> says "Within C++, there is a much smaller and cleaner language
> struggling to get out."
“Just the one, dear?”
-- June Whitfield in “Absolutely Fabulous”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-15 18:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10p7eii$1h082$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123592 |
On 3/15/2026 4:15 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 19:13:11 -0000 (UTC), Nioclás Pól Caileán de > Ghloucester wrote: > >> Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Bjarne Stroustrup >> says "Within C++, there is a much smaller and cleaner language >> struggling to get out." > > “Just the one, dear?” > -- June Whitfield in “Absolutely Fabulous” Nice ! And very true. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-15 17:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10p7c3k$1g6f8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123587 |
On 3/15/2026 2:13 PM, Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester wrote: > Lynn McGuire <LynnMcGuire5@GMail.com> wrote: > |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |"On 3/9/2026 2:27 AM, Marcel Mueller wrote: | > |[. . .] | > |> C++ has become too complex for many programmers. [. . .] | > |> [. . .] | > |> [. . .] | > |> [. . .] | > |> [. . .] | > |> | > |> | > |> Marcel | > | | > |If C++ is too complex for a programmer then the programmer is not a good | > |programmer. | > | | > |[. . .] | > |[. . .] | > |[. . .] | > | | > |Lynn" | > |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > I joined the Association of C & C++ Users more than twenty-six years > ago. I do not recall ever seeing Lynn McGuire listed in a membership > directory thereof. I also do not recall any ACCU publication by her. > > Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Bjarne Stroustrup says > "Within C++, there is a much smaller and cleaner language struggling > to get out." Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Francis > Glassborow publishes similarly? > > Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Eric Naggum published: > that C++'s "unmanageable complexity has spawned more fear-preventing > tools than any other language, but the solution should have been to > create and use a language that does not overload the whole goddamn > human."? > > Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Eric Naggum published: > "I may be biased, but I tend to find a much lower tendency among > female programmers to be dishonest about their skills, and thus do not > say they know C++ when they are smart enough to realize that that > would be a lie for all but perhaps 5 people on this planet."? > > Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Eric Naggum published: > "C++ is a language strongly optimized for liars and people who go by > guesswork and ignorance." > > Does Lynn McGuire believe that Bjarne Stroustrup; Francis Glassborow; > and Eric Naggum are "not [. . .] good programmer"s? > (S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!) Lynn McGuire is a he. 6'1" and bald with a full beard. Running an engineering software company since 1995. Member of ASME and AIChE. Graduate of Texas A&M University in 1982 with Mechanical Engineering degree. Licensed Professional Engineer in the The Great State of Texas since 1989. Commercial Fortran programmer since 1975. Converted to Pascal in 1983. Converted to C in 1987. Converted to C++ in 2001. Just another engineer writing commercial software. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-16 00:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10p7iqo$2e16d$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #123594 |
In comp.lang.c++ Lynn McGuire <LynnMcGuire5@GMail.com> wrote: |-----------------------| |"Lynn McGuire is a he."| |-----------------------| Oops! Sorry! A penpal in Germany used to believe that I am a female so she wrote to me that I keep referring to me as a male, so I wrote back to her that I am indeed a male. (S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-17 00:53 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <d7b8f612a392f19aa89c43b8c48e2af615a4023d.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #123594 |
On Sun, 2026-03-15 at 17:33 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 3/15/2026 2:13 PM, Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester wrote: > > Lynn McGuire <LynnMcGuire5@GMail.com> wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > > "On 3/9/2026 2:27 AM, Marcel Mueller wrote: | > > > [. . .] | > > > > C++ has become too complex for many programmers. [. . .] | > > > > [. . .] | > > > > [. . .] | > > > > [. . .] | > > > > [. . .] | > > > > | > > > > | > > > > Marcel | > > > | > > > If C++ is too complex for a programmer then the programmer is not a good | > > > programmer. | > > > | > > > [. . .] | > > > [. . .] | > > > [. . .] | > > > | > > > Lynn" | > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > > > I joined the Association of C & C++ Users more than twenty-six years > > ago. I do not recall ever seeing Lynn McGuire listed in a membership > > directory thereof. I also do not recall any ACCU publication by her. > > > > Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Bjarne Stroustrup says > > "Within C++, there is a much smaller and cleaner language struggling > > to get out." Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Francis > > Glassborow publishes similarly? > > > > Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Eric Naggum published: > > that C++'s "unmanageable complexity has spawned more fear-preventing > > tools than any other language, but the solution should have been to > > create and use a language that does not overload the whole goddamn > > human."? > > > > Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Eric Naggum published: > > "I may be biased, but I tend to find a much lower tendency among > > female programmers to be dishonest about their skills, and thus do not > > say they know C++ when they are smart enough to realize that that > > would be a lie for all but perhaps 5 people on this planet."? > > > > Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Eric Naggum published: > > "C++ is a language strongly optimized for liars and people who go by > > guesswork and ignorance." > > > > Does Lynn McGuire believe that Bjarne Stroustrup; Francis Glassborow; > > and Eric Naggum are "not [. . .] good programmer"s? > > (S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!) > > Lynn McGuire is a he. 6'1" and bald with a full beard. Running an > engineering software company since 1995. > > Member of ASME and AIChE. Graduate of Texas A&M University in 1982 with > Mechanical Engineering degree. Licensed Professional Engineer in the > The Great State of Texas since 1989. > > Commercial Fortran programmer since 1975. Converted to > Pascal in 1983. Converted to C in 1987. Converted to C++ in 2001. Try to rewrite (or examine) the idea in CSCall OO concept (reset rules). It should make the 'original program' tough and live longer. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/ClassGuidelines.txt/download > Just another engineer writing commercial software. > > Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-16 10:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3k4grk9f7is5vl0hjsccdiqttrdvh145c4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #123587 |
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 19:13:11 -0000 (UTC), Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> wrote: >Lynn McGuire <LynnMcGuire5@GMail.com> wrote: >|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|"On 3/9/2026 2:27 AM, Marcel Mueller wrote: | >|[. . .] | >|> C++ has become too complex for many programmers. [. . .] | >|> [. . .] | >|> [. . .] | >|> [. . .] | >|> [. . .] | >|> | >|> | >|> Marcel | >| | >|If C++ is too complex for a programmer then the programmer is not a good | >|programmer. | >| | >|[. . .] | >|[. . .] | >|[. . .] | >| | >|Lynn" | >|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| > >I joined the Association of C & C++ Users more than twenty-six years >ago. I do not recall ever seeing Lynn McGuire listed in a membership >directory thereof. I also do not recall any ACCU publication by her. > >Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Bjarne Stroustrup says >"Within C++, there is a much smaller and cleaner language struggling >to get out." Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Francis >Glassborow publishes similarly? > >Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Eric Naggum published: >that C++'s "unmanageable complexity has spawned more fear-preventing >tools than any other language, but the solution should have been to >create and use a language that does not overload the whole goddamn >human."? > >Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Eric Naggum published: >"I may be biased, but I tend to find a much lower tendency among >female programmers to be dishonest about their skills, and thus do not >say they know C++ when they are smart enough to realize that that >would be a lie for all but perhaps 5 people on this planet."? > >Does Lynn McGuire or anyone else disagree that Eric Naggum published: >"C++ is a language strongly optimized for liars and people who go by >guesswork and ignorance." > >Does Lynn McGuire believe that Bjarne Stroustrup; Francis Glassborow; >and Eric Naggum are "not [. . .] good programmer"s? >(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!) If you want to know what Erik Naggum thought, there's an archive of his comp.lang.lisp postings at https://xach.com/naggum/articles/. Erik definitely had some strong opinions re: C and C++, and he had good reasons for most of them. He is sorely missed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-16 17:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20260316175656.0000233b@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #123602 |
On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 10:31:56 -0400 George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote: > >Does Lynn McGuire believe that Bjarne Stroustrup; Francis Glassborow; > >and Eric Naggum are "not [. . .] good programmer"s? > >(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!) > > > If you want to know what Erik Naggum thought, there's an archive of > his comp.lang.lisp postings at https://xach.com/naggum/articles/. > > Erik definitely had some strong opinions re: C and C++, and he had > good reasons for most of them. He is sorely missed. I never encountered the name Erik Naggum before that. From Wikipedia article it sounds like he was good programmer, not necessarily star level, but very competent. And very good troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-16 17:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10p9d9n$2hl9e$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #123602 |
In comp.lang.ada George Neuner <gneuner2@Comcast.net> wrote: |---------------------------------------------------------------------| |"If you want to know what Erik Naggum thought, there's an archive of | |his comp.lang.lisp postings at https://xach.com/naggum/articles/. "| |---------------------------------------------------------------------| This is another example where George Neuner taught me via another of his insights. Thanks! I suspect that HTTPS://Xach.com/naggum/articles does not archive all of Naggum's comp.lang.lisp postings which were marked with an anti-archiving header. (S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-16 23:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p1ehrkd48p66db001dvcfdcp0op4jprjqv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #123607 |
On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 17:06:01 -0000 (UTC), Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> wrote: >In comp.lang.ada George Neuner <gneuner2@Comcast.net> wrote: >|---------------------------------------------------------------------| >|"If you want to know what Erik Naggum thought, there's an archive of | >|his comp.lang.lisp postings at https://xach.com/naggum/articles/. "| >|---------------------------------------------------------------------| > >This is another example where George Neuner taught me via another of >his insights. Thanks! I suspect that HTTPS://Xach.com/naggum/articles >does not archive all of Naggum's comp.lang.lisp postings which were >marked with an anti-archiving header. >(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!) I don't know that the Naggum archive is complete, but I am reasonably sure that its time span is correct. I began reading C.L.L in the early 90s. My first memory of Erik was mid/late 90s, and he stopped posting a couple of years before he passed in 2009. Erik really didn't post a whole lot (compared to some others). More typically he would make a few long posts, and then you'd hear nothing more from him until some new topic caught his attention. These are some more extensive C.L.L archives that can provide context for Erik's posts. Again, I can't vouch for completeness. 1986 - 2017 (mbox format files) https://github.com/noend2/comp.lang.lisp-archive 2003 - 2020 (mbox format file) https://archive.org/details/FULL-USENET-BACKUP-2020-Oct-comp.lang.lisp.202216.mbox.7z 1986 - 2022 (web UI - no apparent way to search) https://usenetarchives.com/threads.php?id=comp.lang.lisp note: C.L.L began in 1986. IMHO there hasn't been much substantive discussion in recent years, so the mbox files cover the vast majority of everything you'd want to read anyway. YMMV.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-18 00:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10pcr3k$2thtv$2@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #123612 |
Thanks. The new homepage of impressive HTTPS://USENETArchives.com by Jozef Jarosciak is radically different than the last time I checked (a few days ago). I just found out about news:comp.language.ada and news:comp.lang.vhd - HTTPS://USENETArchives.com/threads.php?id=comp.language.ada&y=1993&r=0&p=1 and HTTPS://USENETArchives.com/threads.php?id=comp.lang.vhd&y=2005&r=0&p=1 I did not check its comp.lang.lisp archive. Its comp.lang.vhdl is definitely incomplete. This incomplete archive still goes back to only 1991. "The newsgroup comp.lang.vhdl was created in January 1990." says Doctor Thomas Dettmer. (S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-18 19:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10pepoh$2g4n$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #123530 |
Am 09.03.2026 um 23:36 schrieb Lynn McGuire: > If C++ is too complex for a programmer then the programmer is not > a good programmer. I'm a good C++ programmer but I admit that C++ is much less readable as for example Rust. And both languages server the same purpose. But I still like C++. > The only exception to that is multiple thread software. That stuff > is dadgum complicated. But the multiple thread software is not used > very often in my circles. Most MT-algoritms are easy (embarassingly parallel).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-18 14:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10petuu$3vuo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123614 |
On 3/18/2026 1:09 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 09.03.2026 um 23:36 schrieb Lynn McGuire: > >> If C++ is too complex for a programmer then the programmer is not >> a good programmer. > > I'm a good C++ programmer but I admit that C++ is much less readable > as for example Rust. And both languages server the same purpose. But > I still like C++. > >> The only exception to that is multiple thread software. That stuff >> is dadgum complicated. But the multiple thread software is not used >> very often in my circles. > > Most MT-algoritms are easy (embarassingly parallel). Spinning off threads is easy. Deciding which variables to mutex is not. Especially in software hundreds of thousands of lines of of C++ long. My Windows user interface is well over 500,000 lines of C++ code. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-18 20:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10pevs3$4rga$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #123615 |
Am 18.03.2026 um 20:21 schrieb Lynn McGuire: > Spinning off threads is easy. Deciding which variables to mutex is not. > Especially in software hundreds of thousands of lines of of C++ long. Code may be that long, but locking scopes are never so long.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-18 13:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10pf1tr$5kcs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123616 |
On 3/18/2026 12:53 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 18.03.2026 um 20:21 schrieb Lynn McGuire: > >> Spinning off threads is easy. Deciding which variables to mutex is >> not. Especially in software hundreds of thousands of lines of of C++ >> long. > > Code may be that long, but locking scopes are never so long. > Ummm.... I have had to debug others code in the past. So, shit happens man!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-18 16:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10pf6d5$75ro$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123616 |
On 3/18/2026 2:53 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 18.03.2026 um 20:21 schrieb Lynn McGuire: > >> Spinning off threads is easy. Deciding which variables to mutex is >> not. Especially in software hundreds of thousands of lines of of C++ >> long. > > Code may be that long, but locking scopes are never so long. One of these days I would love to learn more about threads and locking when life slows down a little bit. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-18 21:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rKEuR.551650$_FY9.466493@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #123615 |
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes: >On 3/18/2026 1:09 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 09.03.2026 um 23:36 schrieb Lynn McGuire: >> >>> If C++ is too complex for a programmer then the programmer is not >>> a good programmer. >> >> I'm a good C++ programmer but I admit that C++ is much less readable >> as for example Rust. And both languages server the same purpose. But >> I still like C++. >> >>> The only exception to that is multiple thread software. That stuff >>> is dadgum complicated. But the multiple thread software is not used >>> very often in my circles. >> >> Most MT-algoritms are easy (embarassingly parallel). > >Spinning off threads is easy. Deciding which variables to mutex is not. As someone with four decades of multitheaded programming experience at both the lowest levels (OS) and highest levels (applications), I strongly disagree. It's very easy to determine whether a particular datum is subject to concurrent access based on understanding the underlying algorithms used. > Especially in software hundreds of thousands of lines of of C++ long. > >My Windows user interface is well over 500,000 lines of C++ code. Ah, windows. Sigh. My current project at work is over 3 million lines of C++ code, and leverages 64 physical cores using over 120 threads (pthreads) with pretty much 100% utilization across all the cores. The nice thing about C++ is that if you do it right, all the locking is almost always encapsulated within a class (e.g. a class member and associated member functions), which naturally restricts the scope of the lock to within the class.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-18 16:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10pf672$75ro$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123618 |
On 3/18/2026 4:24 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes: >> On 3/18/2026 1:09 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 09.03.2026 um 23:36 schrieb Lynn McGuire: >>> >>>> If C++ is too complex for a programmer then the programmer is not >>>> a good programmer. >>> >>> I'm a good C++ programmer but I admit that C++ is much less readable >>> as for example Rust. And both languages server the same purpose. But >>> I still like C++. >>> >>>> The only exception to that is multiple thread software. That stuff >>>> is dadgum complicated. But the multiple thread software is not used >>>> very often in my circles. >>> >>> Most MT-algoritms are easy (embarassingly parallel). >> >> Spinning off threads is easy. Deciding which variables to mutex is not. > > As someone with four decades of multitheaded programming experience > at both the lowest levels (OS) and highest levels (applications), > I strongly disagree. > > It's very easy to determine whether a particular datum is > subject to concurrent access based on understanding the > underlying algorithms used. > >> Especially in software hundreds of thousands of lines of of C++ long. >> >> My Windows user interface is well over 500,000 lines of C++ code. > > Ah, windows. Sigh. > > My current project at work is over 3 million lines of C++ code, and > leverages 64 physical cores using over 120 threads (pthreads) > with pretty much 100% utilization across all the cores. Nice ! Good job. > The nice thing about C++ is that if you do it right, all the > locking is almost always encapsulated within a class (e.g. > a class member and associated member functions), which naturally > restricts the scope of the lock to within the class. It is always, "if you do it right". Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-18 19:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10pfop1$cq9a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #123619 |
On 3/18/2026 2:41 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 3/18/2026 4:24 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes: >>> On 3/18/2026 1:09 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 09.03.2026 um 23:36 schrieb Lynn McGuire: >>>> >>>>> If C++ is too complex for a programmer then the programmer is not >>>>> a good programmer. >>>> >>>> I'm a good C++ programmer but I admit that C++ is much less readable >>>> as for example Rust. And both languages server the same purpose. But >>>> I still like C++. >>>> >>>>> The only exception to that is multiple thread software. That stuff >>>>> is dadgum complicated. But the multiple thread software is not used >>>>> very often in my circles. >>>> >>>> Most MT-algoritms are easy (embarassingly parallel). >>> >>> Spinning off threads is easy. Deciding which variables to mutex is not. >> >> As someone with four decades of multitheaded programming experience >> at both the lowest levels (OS) and highest levels (applications), >> I strongly disagree. >> >> It's very easy to determine whether a particular datum is >> subject to concurrent access based on understanding the >> underlying algorithms used. >> >>> Especially in software hundreds of thousands of lines of of C++ long. >>> >>> My Windows user interface is well over 500,000 lines of C++ code. >> >> Ah, windows. Sigh. >> >> My current project at work is over 3 million lines of C++ code, and >> leverages 64 physical cores using over 120 threads (pthreads) >> with pretty much 100% utilization across all the cores. > > Nice ! Good job. > >> The nice thing about C++ is that if you do it right, all the >> locking is almost always encapsulated within a class (e.g. >> a class member and associated member functions), which naturally >> restricts the scope of the lock to within the class. > > It is always, "if you do it right". If you decide to use threads. Make sure to learn about mutex and condvar first! Then learn about embarrassingly parallel, where no mutex and condvar are "necessarily" needed. Then ponder on lock-free. Make sure to never have to use lock-free unless you absolutely have to! Fwiw, I used to converse with David Butenhof back on comp.programming.threads. Nice guy, and wrote a nice book to read before you even go into C++ threads, perhaps. Well... ? I remember he was pondering on writing another book, cooking with posix threads. https://www.amazon.com/Programming-POSIX-Threads-David-Butenhof/dp/0201633922 :^) Real all of it, then ponder on how C++ is there ready willing and able.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web