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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #47578 > unrolled thread

My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ).

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-12-23 17:06 -0800
    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-24 11:00 +0200
      Re: while() and "Loop(3) { _Loop(4)..." aren't "impenetrable". Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-26 23:17 +0200
        Re: Refactoring is good, God's speed. Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-27 01:17 +0200
          Re: Refactoring is good, God's speed. "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 15:26 -0800
          Re: PHP could use #define, seriously. Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-27 10:01 +0200
          Re: Refactoring is good, God's speed. legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-12-28 18:10 +0000
            Re: Refactoring is good, God's speed. woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-28 10:20 -0800
        Re: Refactoring is good, God's speed. interval1066@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 10:43 -0800
          Re: Refactoring is good, God's speed. legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2017-01-02 00:44 +0000
            #define came from God himself, it's sacred. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-01 23:51 -0800
              #define came from God himself, it's sacred. Jeff-Relf.Me <@..yep> - 2017-01-02 08:00 +0000
                Re: #define came from God himself, it's sacred. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-03 03:58 +0000
                  I completely reWrote it, of course. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-03 00:46 -0800
                    I completely reWrote it, of course. Jeff-Relf.Me <@..sour> - 2017-01-03 08:51 +0000
                    Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-01-03 12:13 +0100
                      Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2017-01-03 12:28 +0100
                      Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-03 07:32 -0600
                        Ezekiel lives in your head RENT FREE!!  LOL!!! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-03 12:16 -0700
                        With "warnings as errors", turn off these warnings. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-03 13:00 -0800
                      Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-03 12:16 -0700
                        Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. red floyd <dont.bother@its.invalid> - 2017-01-03 12:30 -0800
                          If you're retarded then, yes, _Loop() is "undefined". Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-16 11:06 -0800
                        Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-01-04 13:33 +0000
                          Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-04 07:45 -0600
                            Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-01-04 14:54 +0000
                              The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-04 10:17 -0800
                                Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-01-04 19:19 +0100
                                Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-05 03:34 +0000
                                  The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-04 22:26 -0800
                                    Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Anonymous <anonymous@invalid.tld> - 2017-01-05 08:18 +0000
                                      Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-01-05 09:24 +0100
                                      PostScript is my thing. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-05 01:08 -0800
                                    My diffs now _perfectly match MicroSoft's WinMerge. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-07 03:56 -0800
                                      Re: My diffs now _perfectly match MicroSoft's WinMerge. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-01-07 13:09 +0100
                                      Re: My diffs now _perfectly match MicroSoft's WinMerge. jonkalb <google@kalbweb.com> - 2017-01-07 08:32 -0800
                                      Re: My diffs now _perfectly match MicroSoft's WinMerge. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-07 20:25 +0000
                                        Like a compiler that compiles itself, my Diff app diffs itself. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-07 17:53 -0800
                                        Re: My diffs now _perfectly match MicroSoft's WinMerge. Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2017-01-10 22:15 +0100
                                          Text file comparison is essential. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-16 11:23 -0800
                                            Nothing to compare, left and right, old and new. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 04:12 -0800
                                Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-01-05 14:08 +0000
                                Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-05 21:09 +0000
                                  Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2017-01-05 21:19 +0000
                                    "Functional" programming is "Tree Crawling". Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-05 14:53 -0800
                                Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 17:43 -0600
                                  Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2017-01-10 12:02 -0800
                                    Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 20:13 +0000
                                    Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-01-10 20:34 +0000
                                    Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-10 21:21 +0000
                                      Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-10 22:48 +0100
                                        Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-12 21:40 +0000
                                    Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). red floyd <dont.bother@its.invalid> - 2017-01-10 13:46 -0800
                                    Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-11 17:41 +1300
                              Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-01-05 14:08 +0000
                        What about you, GreyCloud ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-16 11:02 -0800
                          Re: What about you, GreyCloud ? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-16 19:46 -0700
                            Health issues ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-16 20:39 -0800
                              Re: Health issues ? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-17 11:50 -0700
                                Negative Interest Rates. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 04:25 -0800
                                  Re: Negative Interest Rates. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-19 11:47 -0700
                                    Negative Interest Rates "rips off" rich people, not the poor. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 19:23 -0800
                                      Re: Negative Interest Rates "rips off" rich people, not the poor. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-20 16:17 -0700
                          Tons of people have reviewed the code, source and object. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 04:02 -0800
                          Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 04:17 -0800
                            Re: Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-19 13:59 +0100
                              No one is here to learn at your feet, sorry. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 05:30 -0800
                              Re: Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-19 07:37 -0600
                                Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 05:43 -0800
                              Re: Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-20 04:32 +0000
                                Usenet isn't WikiPedia; here, it's all play and no work, anything goes. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 21:02 -0800
                    The "Least Longest" diffs. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-03 03:04 -0800
                  Re: #define came from God himself, it's sacred. Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-03 21:27 +0000
        Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) ); jonkalb <google@kalbweb.com> - 2017-01-16 22:05 -0800
          Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) ); woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2017-01-17 11:17 -0800
            Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) ); David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-17 22:20 +0100
          Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) ); Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-17 18:18 -0300
            Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) ); Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-17 21:51 +0000
      Re: while() and "Loop(3) { _Loop(4)..." aren't "impenetrable". Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-12-26 13:24 -0800
        Re: "Standards" are like assholes, everyone's got one. Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-12-26 14:27 -0800
          Re: _Underscores have never been -- and could never be -- a problem. Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-27 13:25 +0200
            Re: Compiling C++ is trivial, always. Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-27 21:38 +0200
              Re: Compiling C++ is trivial, always. Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-27 20:01 +0000
                Re: Compiling C++ is trivial, always. Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-27 22:20 +0200
              Re: How big are your .CPP files ( in MegaBytes, not lines ) ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-28 00:02 +0200
                Re: You could condense it down into fewer, larger, .CPP files. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 14:11 +1300
                  Re: What are you compiling, and how long does it take ? ! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 15:34 +1300
                    Re: Are you Linus Torvalds ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 16:14 +1300
                      Re: The _Default "Subject:" line is neither mandatory or desirable. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 17:35 +1300
                        Re: Would a hardware/software upgrade help ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-29 08:09 +1300
                        Re: The _Default "Subject:" line is neither mandatory or desirable. legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-12-28 20:01 +0000
            Re: I don't create .h files, not a one. Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2017-01-16 19:03 +0000
          Re: _Underscores have never been -- and could never be -- a problem. Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-12-27 05:58 -0800
            Re: _Loop() works fine; I don't use "concurrent_vector.h". Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-27 22:14 +0000
            Re: _Loop() works fine; I don't use "concurrent_vector.h". Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-12-28 02:08 -0800
              Re: _Loop() works fine; I don't use "concurrent_vector.h". woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-28 09:45 -0800
        Re: "Standards" are like assholes, everyone's got one. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-27 12:34 +1300
    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-12-24 10:40 +0100
      Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-26 17:41 -0800
        Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-27 15:28 +1300
    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). jonkalb <google@kalbweb.com> - 2016-12-26 23:24 -0800
      Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 10:54 -0800
        Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 11:26 +1300
          Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 20:36 -0800
            Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 17:42 +1300
              Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 21:24 -0800
                Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 22:16 -0800
                Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-28 13:29 -0800
                  Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-29 10:46 +1300
                Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-30 09:55 +1300
                  Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-29 14:19 -0800
                    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-30 11:25 +1300
                      Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-29 21:59 -0800
                        Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-30 21:27 +1300
                          Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 09:51 -0800
                            Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2016-12-30 19:46 +0100
                    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-30 10:07 +0100
                    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 02:49 -0800
                      Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 03:17 -0800
                Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-29 10:08 +1300
                Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-28 12:41 -0800
                  Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2016-12-28 21:59 +0000
                    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2016-12-29 14:34 +0100
                      Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-29 10:27 -0800
                        Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2016-12-29 20:33 +0100
                    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-28 15:14 -0800
                      Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-29 13:05 +1300
                Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2016-12-28 19:36 +0000

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

#47643 — Re: _Underscores have never been -- and could never be -- a problem.

On 27.12.2016 3:31, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Öö Tiib ) replied ( to me ):
>> > Local definitions override previous ones.
>> > Underscores are too useful to not use.
>> > "Standards" are like assholes, everyone's got one.
>>
>> I am not sure what standards you're talking about.
>> I meant the ISO standards of those two languages.
>
> I use Visaul Studio 2015, exclusively;
> so my code conforms to its standards,
> C++11, C++14 and C++17 ( anticipated ).
>
>> Now if you violate the standards as user of compiler then standard-
>> conforming compiler may (but likely won't) rip you second asshole.
>
> _Underscores have never been -- and could never be -- a problem.
> If I had to rename some variables/funcs/macros, I would,
> _No _Big _Deal; meanwhile, they're _Useful.

Of course they are no problem for you. They are a problem for another 
guy or gal who includes your headers in good faith, together with some 
standard includes, and then cannot understand why the code fails 
compiling deep inside the standard headers. There would be no indication 
that the actual problem is in your header.

Been there, done that (long time ago). It took me half a day to figure 
out why the code stopped compiling after adding an innocent #include 
<string> line, with mysterious error messages from deep inside system 
headers. It came out that somebody had defined a macro named _B in some 
header included by a header included by a header.

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

#47656 — Re: Compiling C++ is trivial, always.

On 27.12.2016 20:56, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Paavo Helde ) replied ( to me ):
>> > _Underscores have never been -- and could never be -- a problem.
>> > If I had to rename some variables/funcs/macros, I would,
>> > _No _Big _Deal; meanwhile, they're _Useful.
>>
>> It took me half a day to figure out why the code stopped _compiling
>> after adding an innocent #include <string> line,
>> with mysterious error messages from deep inside system headers.
>>
>> It came out that somebody had defined a macro named _B
>> in some header included by a header included by a header.
>
> Compiling C++ is trivial, always.
> Testing your code can be problematic, sure;
> but _not compiling, _never.

I am pretty sure you are the first one coming up with such a claim in 
this group. We should give you a medal or something.

> As I said ( in " http://Jeff-Relf.Me/cStyle.HTM " ):
>
>     Put everything in a single, large .CPP file;
>     -- don't create .H files.

And with what editor I would edit that million-line file?

At least I would have lots of free days when the next one-line change is 
compiling ;-)

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

#47657 — Re: Compiling C++ is trivial, always.

On 27/12/2016 19:38, Paavo Helde wrote:
> On 27.12.2016 20:56, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> You ( Paavo Helde ) replied ( to me ):
>>> > _Underscores have never been -- and could never be -- a problem.
>>> > If I had to rename some variables/funcs/macros, I would,
>>> > _No _Big _Deal; meanwhile, they're _Useful.
>>>
>>> It took me half a day to figure out why the code stopped _compiling
>>> after adding an innocent #include <string> line,
>>> with mysterious error messages from deep inside system headers.
>>>
>>> It came out that somebody had defined a macro named _B
>>> in some header included by a header included by a header.
>>
>> Compiling C++ is trivial, always.
>> Testing your code can be problematic, sure;
>> but _not compiling, _never.
>
> I am pretty sure you are the first one coming up with such a claim in
> this group. We should give you a medal or something.
>
>> As I said ( in " http://Jeff-Relf.Me/cStyle.HTM " ):
>>
>>     Put everything in a single, large .CPP file;
>>     -- don't create .H files.
>
> And with what editor I would edit that million-line file?
>
> At least I would have lots of free days when the next one-line change is
> compiling ;-)

Don't feed the troll.

/Flibble

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

#47658 — Re: Compiling C++ is trivial, always.

On 27.12.2016 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 27/12/2016 19:38, Paavo Helde wrote:
>> On 27.12.2016 20:56, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Don't feed the troll.
>
> /Flibble

Come on, he is almost as funny as you! Though your insights into maths 
are hilarious, he probably cannot beat you in that area ;-)

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

#47664 — Re: How big are your .CPP files ( in MegaBytes, not lines ) ?

On 27.12.2016 21:56, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Paavo Helde ) replied ( to me ):
>> > Compiling C++ is trivial, always.
>> > Testing your code can be problematic, sure;
>> > but _not compiling, _never.
>>
>> I am pretty sure you are the first one coming up with such
>> a claim in this group. We should give you a medal or something.
>
> I'm just relating my experience ( 40+ years ), that's all.
>
>> >     Put everything in a single, large .CPP file;
>> >     -- don't create .H files.
>>
>> And with what editor I would edit that million-line file?
>> At least I would have lots of free days when the next one-line
>> change is compiling ;-)
>
> My 2 MegaByte .CPP files compile in no time.
> How big are yours ( in MegaBytes, not lines ) ?

This is because your CPP file is a renamed .c file with with no usage of 
C++ features and not including any standard headers (because STL wasn't 
around in 1976 I guess, it was started only in 1979). As a result, most 
of your file is a poor reimplementation of standard STL utilities and 
could be compressed 20x when rewritten in proper C++.

As to answer your question, the current source code written by our group 
for our product is 33 MB / 748308 lines. It recompiles in ca 20 minutes 
thanks to SSD disks. The recompile of the whole workspace with 
third-party libraries (another 600 MB of C and C++ code) takes about 2 
hours. But I'm sure that if this 33 MB is put into a single file then 
the recompilation times would become infinite because the compilers 
would choke and hang on it.

So, keep up the good work in turning the clock back. I would like to 
have back the sixties with happy hippies and no concerns, can you make that?

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

#47669 — Re: You could condense it down into fewer, larger, .CPP files.

On 12/28/16 01:16 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Paavo Helde ) replied ( to me ):
>> > My 2 MegaByte .CPP files compile in no time.
>> > How big are yours ( in MegaBytes, not lines ) ?
>>
>> most of your file is a poor reimplementation of standard STL utilities
>> and could be compressed 20x when rewritten in proper C++.
>
> No, it doesn't take much to implement STL-like dynamic arrays.
>
>    template < typename TyT, typename TyA, typename TyP >
>    TyP & Inc( TyT  & Xx, int N );
>
> I prefer my own stuff; easier to modify; to wit:
>
>    My Diff looks like ＜This <http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Diff.PNG>＞.
>    [ Red is the old stuff, Green is new ]
>
>> As to answer your question, the current source code written
>> by our group for our product is 33 MB / 748,308 lines.
>> It recompiles in ca 20 minutes thanks to SSD disks.
>
> What does it do ?
>
> You could condense it down into fewer, larger, .CPP files;
> or not... it's up to you and yours, of course.

Fewer, larger .cpp files has always been a pain for readers, on modern 
multi-core systems it's the best way to ruin build times.

-- 
Ian

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

#47670 — Re: What are you compiling, and how long does it take ? !

On 12/28/16 02:22 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Ian Collins ) replied ( to me ):
>> > You could condense it down into fewer, larger, .CPP files;
>> > or not... it's up to you and yours, of course.
>>
>> Fewer, larger .cpp files has always been a pain for readers,
>> on modern multi-core systems it's the best way to ruin build times.
>
> For me, compile time is barely noticeable.
> What are you compiling, and how long does it take ? !

A large control application along with about 50 other developers.  A 
single target build takes several minutes on a 32 core machine.

Not only would fewer, larger files be a nightmare to edit and build, we 
would have way too many merges to ever get anything done.

-- 
Ian

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

#47671 — Re: Are you Linus Torvalds ?

Please stop changing the subject....

On 12/28/16 03:53 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Ian Collins ) replied ( to me ):
>> > For me, compile time is barely noticeable.
>> > What are you compiling, and how long does it take ? !
>>
>> A large control application along with about 50 other developers.
>> A single target build takes several minutes on a 32 core machine.
>
> What's being controlled, a robot ?

Heavy machinery.

> What OS are you running on this "32 core machine",
> and how many people access it ?

Some Linux, some Windows.  All virtual machines on SmartOS hypervisors.

>> Not only would fewer, larger files be a nightmare to edit
>> and build, we would have way too many _merges to ever get anything done.
>
> I can't imagine what it's like to work with "50 other developers",
> all working on the same bit of code...

That how most of us work...

> are you Linus Torvalds ?

Don't be silly, he works with scores of developers...

-- 
Ian

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

#47674 — Re: The _Default "Subject:" line is neither mandatory or desirable.

On 12/28/16 05:09 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Ian Collins ) replied ( to me ):
>> > What's being controlled, a robot ?
>>
>> Heavy machinery.
>>
>> > What OS are you running on this "32 core machine",
>> > and how many people access it ?
>>
>> Some Linux, some Windows.
>> All virtual machines on SmartOS hypervisors.
>
> Compile time isn't the bottle neck then
> because, to run, you have to wait on 50+ people,
> running various _guest operating systems ( on the _host ),
> controlling the (slow?) "heavy machinery".

Nope, there's no waiting and the build machines are mainly 
cross-compiling for the machine controllers.

> Checking code in and out limits the size of the .CPP file,
> not compile time; whatever the limitations, still:
>
>    Fewer, Larger, .CPP files are better.

Nope, build times are the bottleneck.  If there were larger files, there 
would be less build distribution, some files would need too much memory 
to optimise, developers would waste too much time merging changes and 
they would get pissed off editing the large files.

-- 
Ian

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

#47699 — Re: Would a hardware/software upgrade help ?

On 12/28/16 07:49 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Ian Collins ) replied ( to me ):
>> > Checking code in and out limits the size of the .CPP file,
>> > not compile time; whatever the limitations, still:
>> >    Fewer, Larger, .CPP files are better.
>>
>> Nope, build times are the bottleneck.  If there were larger files, there
>> would be less build distribution, some files would need too much memory
>> to optimise, developers would waste too much time merging changes and
>> they would get pissed off editing the large files.
>
> You _say that neither your programmers nor your compilers
> could handle fewer, larger .CPP files but you could be wrong.
>
> Have you tried fewer, larger .CPP files ?

No, for the simple reasons stated above.

> Would a hardware/software upgrade help ?

Faster hardware always helps....  We current have the fastest available.

> Are you running legacy hardware/software ?

No.

-- 
Ian

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

#47722 — Re: The _Default "Subject:" line is neither mandatory or desirable.

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> spake the secret code
<ecgtofF2eo0U1@mid.individual.net> thusly:

>Nope, build times are the bottleneck.

I'm looking forward to modules as an improvement here.
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
            The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
     The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
  Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

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

#48095 — Re: I don't create .h files, not a one.

On 16/01/2017 18:16, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Paavo Helde told me:
>> > _Underscores have never been -- and could never be -- a problem.
>> > If I had to rename some variables/funcs/macros, I would,
>> > _No _Big _Deal; meanwhile, they're _Useful.
>>
>> Of course they are no problem for you. They are a problem for another
>> guy or gal who includes your headers in good faith, together with some
>> standard includes, and then cannot understand why the code fails
>> compiling deep inside the standard headers.
>
> I don't create .h files, not a one.

Your code is terrible and you are a fucking idiot mate. Macros 
(#defines) are unsafe and should be avoided where possible in C++.

/Flibble

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

#47646 — Re: _Underscores have never been -- and could never be -- a problem.

On Tuesday, 27 December 2016 03:31:17 UTC+2, Jeff-Relf.Me  wrote:
> You ( Öö Tiib ) replied ( to me ):
> > > Local definitions override previous ones.
> > > Underscores are too useful to not use.
> > > "Standards" are like assholes, everyone's got one.
> > 
> > I am not sure what standards you're talking about.
> > I meant the ISO standards of those two languages. 
> 
> I use Visaul Studio 2015, exclusively;
> so my code conforms to its standards,
> C++11, C++14 and C++17 ( anticipated ).

Playing daff? I keep telling you that _Loop is reserved name
that  programmers should not use by every of these
standards.

>  
> > Now if you violate the standards as user of compiler then standard-
> > conforming compiler may (but likely won't) rip you second asshole.
> 
> _Underscores have never been -- and could never be -- a problem.
> If I had to rename some variables/funcs/macros, I would,
> _No _Big _Deal; meanwhile, they're _Useful.

All code (so also every construct with defects in it) can be easily
edited and modified. That does not make written undefined
behavior or other bugs not a problem. In my experience about 80%
effort goes into fixing bugs anyway so making more deliberately
is irrational, unless that is meant as sabotage. Especially when that
underscore there gives no benefits whatsoever.

> 
> Are you _Really worried about compilers "ripping you a new one" ? !
> How old are you ?  I started coding in _1976, when I was _16.
> Ever since _1981, it has paid my rent.

Can't you read? I wrote that those likely won't manifest. Only
sometimes waste time pointlessly. Why to make such defects
knowingly?

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

#47665 — Re: _Loop() works fine; I don't use "concurrent_vector.h".

On 27/12/2016 20:16, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> _Loop() works fine; I don't use "concurrent_vector.h";
> even if I did, my local definition OverRides it.
> I could change the name, of course.  I don't create .H files.

The point is that _you_ are forbidden to use a name like that. They are 
reserved for the compiler, and the next release of the compiler is quite 
entitled to #define it to something that causes really weird errors.

And please don't post those funny font settings.

Andy

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

#47685 — Re: _Loop() works fine; I don't use "concurrent_vector.h".

On Tuesday, 27 December 2016 22:16:38 UTC+2, Jeff-Relf.Me  wrote:
> You ( Öö Tiib ) replied ( to me ):
> > > I use Visaul Studio 2015, exclusively;
> > > so my code conforms to its standards,
> > > C++11, C++14 and C++17 ( anticipated ).
> > 
> > Playing daff? I keep telling you that _Loop is reserved name
> > that programmers should not use by every of these standards.
> 
> _Loop() works fine; I don't use "concurrent_vector.h";
> even if I did, my local definition OverRides it.
> I could change the name, of course.  I don't create .H files.

You may do or not do and use or avoid using whatever you want with your own
code. That does not matter to others. However why you advice others to do
these irrational things? These only waste time, give no benefits and 
make teamwork more difficult. 

>  
> > > Are you _Really worried about compilers "ripping you a new one" ? !
> > 
> > Can't you read? I wrote that those likely won't manifest. Only
> > sometimes waste time pointlessly. Why to make such defects knowingly?
> 
> Sorry, but I only see the upside ( readablity ).
> 
> There are tons of macros/funcs/vars from outside libraries;
> OverRiding them ( with local definitions ) does happen, rarely,
> but it has little to do with underscores.

Where is that readability? Your words lack logic. One who sees 
that _Loop in code most likely thinks that it is some compiler-specific
keyword (like _Bool or _Complex of C). Later it occurs that it is just
other guy misusing reserved naming convention for his own custom
code-mutating macro. So it was confusing. "Confusing" is not synonym
of "readable".

If you write code that confuses others then it makes it hard to cooperate
with you. That is bad since most software is not written alone. What I
have typically seen are up to 10 teams of 4 to 8 persons per team.

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

#47696 — Re: _Loop() works fine; I don't use "concurrent_vector.h".

On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 4:08:35 AM UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 December 2016 22:16:38 UTC+2, Jeff-Relf.Me  wrote:
> > You ( Öö Tiib ) replied ( to me ):
> > > > I use Visaul Studio 2015, exclusively;
> > > > so my code conforms to its standards,
> > > > C++11, C++14 and C++17 ( anticipated ).
> > > 
> > > Playing daff? I keep telling you that _Loop is reserved name
> > > that programmers should not use by every of these standards.
> > 
> > _Loop() works fine; I don't use "concurrent_vector.h";
> > even if I did, my local definition OverRides it.
> > I could change the name, of course.  I don't create .H files.
> 
> You may do or not do and use or avoid using whatever you want with your own
> code. That does not matter to others. However why you advice others to do
> these irrational things? These only waste time, give no benefits and 
> make teamwork more difficult. 
> 
> >  
> > > > Are you _Really worried about compilers "ripping you a new one" ? !
> > > 
> > > Can't you read? I wrote that those likely won't manifest. Only
> > > sometimes waste time pointlessly. Why to make such defects knowingly?
> > 
> > Sorry, but I only see the upside ( readablity ).
> > 
> > There are tons of macros/funcs/vars from outside libraries;
> > OverRiding them ( with local definitions ) does happen, rarely,
> > but it has little to do with underscores.
> 
> Where is that readability? Your words lack logic. One who sees 
> that _Loop in code most likely thinks that it is some compiler-specific
> keyword (like _Bool or _Complex of C). Later it occurs that it is just
> other guy misusing reserved naming convention for his own custom
> code-mutating macro. So it was confusing. "Confusing" is not synonym
> of "readable".
> 
> If you write code that confuses others then it makes it hard to cooperate
> with you. 

If you intentionally write code that confuses others ...
is how I would say it.

> That is bad since most software is not written alone. What I
> have typically seen are up to 10 teams of 4 to 8 persons per team.

I've worked at a number of big companies and so I'm familiar 
with what you are talking about.  And I believe the 3-tier 
architecture of the C++ Middleware Writer would work well 
for teams of the size you mention.  It took me a few years 
to realize that the web interface I had in 2003 wasn't going 
to cut it.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises 
http://webEbenezer.net

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

#47631 — Re: "Standards" are like assholes, everyone's got one.

On 12/27/16 10:54 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Öö Tiib ) replied ( to me ):

>> Huh? Even name of that _Loop is illegal both by C++ (17.4.3.1.2) and C
>> (7.1.3) standards. When noobs use reserved names then behavior of
>> program is undefined.
>
> Local definitions override previous ones.
>
> Underscores are too useful to not use.
>
> "Standards" are like assholes, everyone's got one.

Only Americans...

-- 
Ian

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

#47582

 wrote:

> My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ):
> 

Yes, we know. Shitty beyond belief

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

#47632

On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 3:40:50 AM UTC-6, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

Please don't swear here.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

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

#47634

On 12/27/16 02:41 PM, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 3:40:50 AM UTC-6, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> Please don't swear here.

He didn't.

-- 
Ian

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

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

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

csiph-web