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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #7938 > unrolled thread

Why your next language better be C++

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  Why your next language better be C++ Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-07-18 11:18 -0500
    Re: Why your next language better be C++ "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-18 19:46 +0100
    Re: Why your next language better be C++ Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-07-19 00:03 -0700
      Re: Why your next language better be C++ "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> - 2011-07-19 17:19 +0200
      Re: Why your next language better be C++ Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-07-19 09:39 -0700
      Re: Why your next language better be C++ Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-07-19 13:35 -0500
        Re: Why your next language better be C++ James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 05:31 -0700
      Re: Why your next language better be C++ Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-07-19 13:59 -0500
      Re: Why your next language better be C++ Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 01:42 +0100
    Re: Why your next language better be C++ BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-19 03:00 -0700
      Re: Why your next language better be C++ Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 01:28 +0100
        Re: Why your next language better be C++ BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-21 00:37 -0700
          Re: Why your next language better be C++ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-07-21 15:53 +0000
            Re: Why your next language better be C++ BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-21 12:31 -0700
              Re: Why your next language better be C++ Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 10:21 +0100
                Re: Why your next language better be C++ BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 10:43 -0700
    Re: Why your next language better be C++ James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-20 13:12 -0700
      Re: Why your next language better be C++ "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-20 15:52 -0500
        Re: Why your next language better be C++ James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 05:39 -0700
          Re: Why your next language better be C++ "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 14:54 -0500
            Re: Why your next language better be C++ Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-07-21 13:47 -0700
            Re: Why your next language better be C++ Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 10:30 +0100
            Re: Why your next language better be C++ James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 12:35 -0700
            Re: Why your next language better be C++ "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> - 2011-07-23 16:30 +0200
              Re: Why your next language better be C++ BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-23 12:04 -0700
              Re: Why your next language better be C++ Werner <werasm@gmail.com> - 2011-07-25 00:00 -0700
      Re: Why your next language better be C++ Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-07-20 17:36 -0500
        Re: Why your next language better be C++ "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> - 2011-07-21 20:42 +0200
      Re: Why your next language better be C++ Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-07-20 22:36 -0700
      Re: Why your next language better be C++ Michael DOUBEZ <michael.doubez@free.fr> - 2011-07-21 04:52 -0700
      Re: Why your next language better be C++ "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 17:54 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#8057

On 7/21/2011 12:54 PM, JBarleycorn wrote:
> James Kanze wrote:

>> There was never a battle, because C# never tried to be what C++
>> is: a portable language for large scale applications.
>
> At least you marketeers are getting off of that "general purpose
> language" thing now and trying to sell it as still good for some niche.

Just FYI, I consider C++ one of the best general purpose languages in 
existence.  It's other languages that fill niches.  I just haven't said 
anything because it's silly to argue with idiots.

If you like C#...go use it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8086

JBarleycorn wrote:

>> There are certainly things that one might have written in C++
>> some years ago, and that one would perhaps write in Java or C#
>> today.  But C# isn't really applicable for most of what C++
>> does.
> 
> Oh? So what does "C++ do"? (rhetorical, for you answered that question
> below... stay tuned...).

Well, as both languages are Turing complete then theoretically they both are 
able to do anyting.  Nevertheless, C++ doesn't put a patent sword hanging 
over your head, nor it presents the same dangers regarding software rot.


>> There was never a battle, because C# never tried to be what C++
>> is: a portable language for large scale applications.
> 
> At least you marketeers are getting off of that "general purpose
> language" thing now and trying to sell it as still good for some niche.
> Basically, you just said: don't use it unless you have a "large project,
> over multiple platforms"... 

Your generalization and attempt at a strawman is absurd.


> way to go Mr. C++ Salesman... I sure hope you
> don't work on a commission basis! I wonder how many of these so called
> "large projects, over multiple platforms" wouldn't have cost a boatload
> less if they just would have made sure that the deployment spaces were
> all Microsoft platforms, where they could have been on MS platforms, that
> is..

Your trolling skills are weak.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8104

On Jul 21, 8:54 pm, "JBarleycorn" <jbn...@newsnet.org> wrote:
> James Kanze wrote:

    [...]
> At least you marketeers are getting off of that "general purpose
> language" thing now and trying to sell it as still good for some niche.

Hardly a "niche", since it covers a large percentage of
software, in a large number of domains.  But no one, not even
Stroustrup, has claimed that you shouldn't use other languages,
or that there aren't cases where they are more appropriate.

> Basically, you just said: don't use it unless you have a "large project,
> over multiple platforms"... way to go Mr. C++ Salesman... I sure hope you
> don't work on a commission basis! I wonder how many of these so called
> "large projects, over multiple platforms" wouldn't have cost a boatload
> less if they just would have made sure that the deployment spaces were
> all Microsoft platforms, where they could have been on MS platforms, that
> is..

Microsoft platforms are still way to expensive to maintain, and
don't offer the necessary performance.  Anytime you see a place
which is 100% Microsoft, you know that the IT director is
incompetent.  Multiple platforms are a fact of life: one size
doesn't fit all, and different applications have different
needs.

--
James Kanze

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8129

JBarleycorn wrote:
> James Kanze wrote:
>>
>> There was never a battle, because C# never tried to be what C++
>> is: a portable language for large scale applications.
>
> At least you marketeers are getting off of that "general purpose
> language" thing now and trying to sell it as still good for some
> niche. Basically, you just said: don't use it unless you have a
> "large project, over multiple platforms"... way to go Mr. C++
> Salesman... I sure hope you don't work on a commission basis! I
> wonder how many of these so called "large projects, over multiple
> platforms" wouldn't have cost a boatload less if they just would
> have made sure that the deployment spaces were all Microsoft
> platforms, where they could have been on MS platforms, that is..

Considering that James work as a consultant, I think you must have 
missed something.  :-)

If you write server side software that is supposed to run on things 
other than a Windows Server, what is the advantage of C#? Not 
everything is a desktop application.



Bo Persson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8132

On 7/23/2011 7:30 AM, Bo Persson wrote:
> JBarleycorn wrote:
>> James Kanze wrote:
>>>
>>> There was never a battle, because C# never tried to be what C++
>>> is: a portable language for large scale applications.
>>
>> At least you marketeers are getting off of that "general purpose
>> language" thing now and trying to sell it as still good for some
>> niche. Basically, you just said: don't use it unless you have a
>> "large project, over multiple platforms"... way to go Mr. C++
>> Salesman... I sure hope you don't work on a commission basis! I
>> wonder how many of these so called "large projects, over multiple
>> platforms" wouldn't have cost a boatload less if they just would
>> have made sure that the deployment spaces were all Microsoft
>> platforms, where they could have been on MS platforms, that is..
>
> Considering that James work as a consultant, I think you must have
> missed something.  :-)
>
> If you write server side software that is supposed to run on things
> other than a Windows Server, what is the advantage of C#? Not
> everything is a desktop application.
>

yes, or if one develops for the desktop, but is mostly developing libraries.

C, and C++ with 'extern "C"', have an advantage of being more readily 
accessible from damn near anything, whereas most other HLLs are 
accessible from damn near nothing (besides themselves).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8169

On Jul 25, 6:23 am, "JBarleycorn" <jbn...@newsnet.org> wrote:

> I'm not bad,
> I'm really not. I just play "bad" on the internet..

Ahah, then you really are bad then... Now you
know it. If you are bad when you have no
accountability, then you are bad to the core.

;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8013

On 7/20/2011 3:12 PM, James Kanze wrote:
> On Jul 18, 5:18 pm, Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com>  wrote:
>> Why your next language better be C++:
>>     http://www.i-programmer.info/professional-programmer/i-programmer/267...
>
>> "It looks as if the war between C++ and C# is over
>> and C++ has won."
>
> More idiot ramblings.,  There was never a war between C++ and
> C#, so there can't be any winner or looser.  The languages
> address different problems: C# isn't actually that bad---for
> what it is designed to do.  C++ is better, for what it was
> designed to do (and that's a lot of things) than any of the
> alternatives; most of the other languages one sees today are
> designed for much smaller niches, where they're often very good.
> (We use C++, C#, Java, Python, and Perl, in different places.
> Not to mention GMake, Solution and project files, etc., etc.)
>
> --
> James Kanze

If you read Microsoft publications then they sure have
been presenting C# as a successor to C++.  Several of the
articles implied that the System people were totally
rewriting Windows in C#.  Looks like the System and
Office people totally ignored the Language people or won
all the battles.

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8049

Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 7/20/2011 3:12 PM, James Kanze wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 5:18 pm, Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com>  wrote:
>>> Why your next language better be C++:
>>> 
>>> http://www.i-programmer.info/professional-programmer/i-programmer/267...
>>
>>> "It looks as if the war between C++ and C# is over
>>> and C++ has won."
>>
>> More idiot ramblings.,  There was never a war between C++ and
>> C#, so there can't be any winner or looser.  The languages
>> address different problems: C# isn't actually that bad---for
>> what it is designed to do.  C++ is better, for what it was
>> designed to do (and that's a lot of things) than any of the
>> alternatives; most of the other languages one sees today are
>> designed for much smaller niches, where they're often very good.
>> (We use C++, C#, Java, Python, and Perl, in different places.
>> Not to mention GMake, Solution and project files, etc., etc.)
>>
>> --
>> James Kanze
>
> If you read Microsoft publications then they sure have
> been presenting C# as a successor to C++.  Several of the
> articles implied that the System people were totally
> rewriting Windows in C#.  Looks like the System and
> Office people totally ignored the Language people or won
> all the battles.
>

That's marketing, what does that have to do with anything?


Bo Persson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8023

On Jul 20, 3:12 pm, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 5:18 pm, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
> > Why your next language better be C++:
> >    http://www.i-programmer.info/professional-programmer/i-programmer/267...
> > "It looks as if the war between C++ and C# is over
> > and C++ has won."
>
> More idiot ramblings.,  There was never a war between C++ and
> C#, so there can't be any winner or looser.  The languages
> address different problems: C# isn't actually that bad---for


They've spent billions on it to make sure it
doesn't suck too bad.


> what it is designed to do.  C++ is better, for what it was
> designed to do (and that's a lot of things) than any of the
> alternatives; most of the other languages one sees today are
> designed for much smaller niches, where they're often very good.
> (We use C++
:>

> , C#
:|

> , Java
:(

> , Python
:}

> , and Perl
:|


Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8032

On 20 juil, 22:12, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 5:18 pm, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
> > Why your next language better be C++:
> >    http://www.i-programmer.info/professional-programmer/i-programmer/267...
> > "It looks as if the war between C++ and C# is over
> > and C++ has won."
>
> More idiot ramblings.,  There was never a war between C++ and
> C#, so there can't be any winner or looser.  The languages
> address different problems: C# isn't actually that bad---for
> what it is designed to do.  C++ is better, for what it was
> designed to do (and that's a lot of things) than any of the
> alternatives;

I am rather tempted by the D programming language. Especially the
syntax which is IMO more readable and have intersting features (in
particular threads not sharing mutable data by default).

> most of the other languages one sees today are
> designed for much smaller niches,

IMO it is a 3 vs 4 generation language issue. At a few exception, all
of them claim to be (the new) general purpose programming language.

Not to mention the 5thGL with our lisp and prolog friends users that
have found the truth but still have to endure this world.

> where they're often very good.
> (We use C++, C#, Java, Python, and Perl, in different places.
> Not to mention GMake, Solution and project files, etc., etc.)

{same as Ebenezer :)}

--
Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8061

James Kanze wrote:

> C++ is better, for what it was
> designed to do (and that's a lot of things) than any of the
> alternatives; most of the other languages one sees today are
> designed for much smaller niches

You mean smaller niches than the "large projects, over multiple
platforms" niche? 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web