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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #19026 > unrolled thread

C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct"

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

Contents

  C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" gus gassmann <gus@nospam.com> - 2012-10-17 06:49 -0300
    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-10-17 13:08 +0200
      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-17 08:19 -0400
      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-10-17 15:19 +0000
      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" gus gassmann <gus@nospam.com> - 2012-10-17 18:47 -0300
        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-10-17 22:46 +0000
          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-18 07:13 +0000
        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-17 18:58 -0400
          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> - 2012-10-18 09:55 +0200
            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-10-18 10:13 +0200
              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-18 08:23 +0000
                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-10-18 11:17 +0200
                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-18 23:37 +1300
                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 15:35 +0100
                    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-10-19 11:40 -0700
              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-18 21:45 +1300
              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 15:03 +0100
            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-18 07:18 -0400
              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> - 2012-10-18 17:43 +0200
            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-10-18 13:52 -0700
              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-19 21:34 +1300
              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> - 2012-10-19 11:03 +0200
                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-20 14:03 +0100
              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-19 09:27 +0000
                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> - 2012-10-19 13:43 +0200
                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-19 12:46 +0000
                    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 10:14 -0700
                    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2012-10-19 14:53 -0500
                      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-10-19 13:52 -0700
                        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-10-19 14:13 -0700
                        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-19 21:24 +0000
                          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-20 11:47 +1300
                      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-19 21:22 +0000
                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-10-19 11:21 -0700
                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-19 21:29 +0000
                    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-19 18:53 -0400
                      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-20 12:13 +1300
                        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-20 05:55 +0000
                          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> - 2012-10-20 13:24 +0200
                            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-20 12:54 +0100
                            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-20 06:45 -0700
                              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-21 09:20 +1300
                              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2012-10-20 22:28 +0200
                              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-21 07:05 +0000
                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-21 02:23 -0500
                                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-21 07:32 +0000
                                    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-21 11:56 +0100
                                    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-21 12:54 -0500
                                      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" ptyxs <kerloch@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 13:43 +0200
                                        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 03:37 -0700
                                          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-26 07:33 -0500
                                    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-27 05:14 -0700
                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-27 05:08 -0700
                          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-20 13:44 -0500
                            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-21 09:09 +1300
                              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2012-10-20 22:31 +0200
                              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-21 02:11 -0500
                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-21 20:28 +1300
                                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-21 07:40 +0000
                                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-21 13:31 -0500
                                    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-22 08:41 +1300
                                      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-21 16:24 -0500
                                        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-10-21 15:05 -0700
                                        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-22 07:52 +0000
                                          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-22 14:02 -0500
                                            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 03:41 -0700
                                              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-26 07:53 -0500
                                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-26 09:51 -0400
                                                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-26 13:48 -0400
                                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 07:35 -0700
                                                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2012-10-26 18:42 -0500
                                                    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-10-27 04:21 -0700
                                                      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-10-27 05:04 -0700
                                                      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2012-10-27 08:06 -0500
                                                        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-10-27 06:50 -0700
                                                          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2012-10-27 11:13 -0500
                                                            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-10-27 12:02 -0700
                                                              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2012-10-27 15:46 -0500
                                                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-10-27 20:24 -0700
                                                      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2012-10-27 20:11 +0200
                                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-27 05:43 -0700
                                                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-27 13:52 -0500
                                                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-27 14:40 -0500
                                        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" google@ianshome.com - 2012-10-23 12:03 -0700
                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-27 05:35 -0700
                                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-27 14:24 -0500
                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-27 05:36 -0700
                            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-21 07:08 +0000
                              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-21 02:51 -0500
                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-21 21:09 +1300
                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-21 12:16 +0100
                            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-21 11:55 +0100
                              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-21 13:47 -0500
                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-22 08:46 +1300
                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 03:02 +0100
                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-22 08:04 +0000
                              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Tobias Müller <troplin@bluewin.ch> - 2012-10-21 18:54 +0000
                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-22 08:49 +1300
                                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Tobias Müller <troplin@bluewin.ch> - 2012-10-21 20:07 +0000
                                    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-10-21 13:53 -0700
                                    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-22 09:54 +1300
                                    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 02:41 +0100
                                      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Tobias Müller <troplin@bluewin.ch> - 2012-10-22 06:12 +0000
                                      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-10-22 20:52 +0000
                                        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-10-22 16:30 -0700
                                          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> - 2012-10-23 11:22 +0200
                                            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-10-23 16:58 +0000
                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 02:22 +0100
                            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-27 05:30 -0700
                        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-20 09:06 -0400
                          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-10-20 07:43 -0700
                          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-21 07:11 +0000
                            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-21 11:56 +0100
                            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-21 07:43 -0400
                              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-10-21 10:36 -0700
                              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-22 08:13 +0000
                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 15:08 +0000
                                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-22 14:42 -0400
                          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-21 10:12 +0100
                    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-20 13:24 -0500
                      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-21 07:16 +0000
                        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-21 13:57 -0500
                          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-22 08:17 +0000
                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-10-20 22:41 +0200
                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2012-10-21 01:04 +0200
                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-21 07:23 +0000
              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-10-21 19:33 +0000
                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-10-21 13:20 -0700
                  Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-10-23 15:44 +0000
                    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2012-10-23 20:01 +0200
                      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> - 2012-10-24 12:01 +0200
                        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2012-10-24 20:31 +0200
            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-20 06:13 -0700
              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-21 07:25 +0000
                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-27 05:54 -0700
            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Old Wolf <oldwolf@inspire.net.nz> - 2012-11-11 14:58 -0800
              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" gof@somewhere.invalid (Adam Wysocki) - 2012-11-12 10:33 +0000
        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-18 12:19 +1300
      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-18 07:06 +0000
        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-10-18 11:36 +0200
          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-19 09:28 +0000
            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-10-19 12:07 +0200
              Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" gus gassmann <gus@nospam.com> - 2012-10-19 08:03 -0300
                Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-10-20 07:14 +0200
            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-19 06:58 -0400
    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-17 08:29 -0400
    Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2012-10-17 08:35 -0400
      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-17 08:49 -0400
      Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-18 07:10 +0000
        Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-18 12:11 -0700
          Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-10-19 09:30 +0000
            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-19 03:05 -0700
            Re: C/C++ question about dynamic "static struct" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-19 07:37 -0400

Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8  Next page →

#19150

In comp.lang.c++ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:
>> Just the standard library alone makes life so much
>> easier (no matter if you are just making a quick 50-line test program
>> or a large 50k-line serious project.)
> 
> Or you get an old version of STL that's buggy and there's an observed 
> problem that takes up to a *year* ( off and on - not continuous
> pushing ) to resolve.

When C programmers have to resort to problems that might have been
relevant 20 years ago in order to make their case, I think that
demonstrates quite well that they don't have any *actual* argument.

> Also, I once had a ... data structure that I built with a need
> for associativity ( think arrays indexed by strings ) where it
> was twice the code* and half the performance to use STL than
> bash something out in 'C'. Oh, if STL had only had "foreach"
> from the start....

"The standard library cannot be used for this", is a rather weak
argument for why the standard library is not useful. The standard
library does not offer *everything*. So what? What it does offer
is in practice very useful.

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

#19174

Juha Nieminen wrote:
> In comp.lang.c++ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:
>>> Just the standard library alone makes life so much
>>> easier (no matter if you are just making a quick 50-line test program
>>> or a large 50k-line serious project.)
>>
>> Or you get an old version of STL that's buggy and there's an observed
>> problem that takes up to a *year* ( off and on - not continuous
>> pushing ) to resolve.
>
> When C programmers have to resort to problems that might have been
> relevant 20 years ago in order to make their case, I think that
> demonstrates quite well that they don't have any *actual* argument.
>

This was much, much more recent than that. People are
*still running* 20 year old STL implementations...

"So why don't you upgrade?" My very question. The answer
was interesting.

>> Also, I once had a ... data structure that I built with a need
>> for associativity ( think arrays indexed by strings ) where it
>> was twice the code* and half the performance to use STL than
>> bash something out in 'C'. Oh, if STL had only had "foreach"
>> from the start....
>
> "The standard library cannot be used for this", is a rather weak
> argument for why the standard library is not useful.

It's an explicit demonstration of the *dis*utility of it. Dunno
about you, but I don't get to point to that and say "abandon
hope", I have to go fix it.

> The standard
> library does not offer *everything*. So what? What it does offer
> is in practice very useful.
>

It *can* be. What we're arguing about is whether or not
language features enable bad practice, and that's not
going to be settled in one thread.

--
Les Cargill

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

#19196

In comp.lang.c++ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:
>> When C programmers have to resort to problems that might have been
>> relevant 20 years ago in order to make their case, I think that
>> demonstrates quite well that they don't have any *actual* argument.
> 
> This was much, much more recent than that. People are
> *still running* 20 year old STL implementations...

And this affects me how, exactly? Why should *I* care? Why should I choose
C over C++ if some people are still running 20 year old STL implementations?

>> "The standard library cannot be used for this", is a rather weak
>> argument for why the standard library is not useful.
> 
> It's an explicit demonstration of the *dis*utility of it. Dunno
> about you, but I don't get to point to that and say "abandon
> hope", I have to go fix it.

I don't understand that at all. Since the standard library does not
offer a solution for every single problem in existence, it's not
useful? That's like one of the craziest arguments I have ever heard,
even from a C advocate (and that's saying quite a lot; believe me,
I have seen quite crazy stuff.)

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

#19140

Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:

most of what you wrote is agreeable, snipped...

> Also, C++ does have some features that are not offered by other languages.

This is hard to believe. Would you be inclined to name a few? I'm not a
C/C++ guy so I'll have to check but I really find it difficult to believe C
or C++ could offer anything that isn't offered by other languages for a few
reasons:

C is not the oldest language, therefore it was based on ideas and languages
that came before. C++ is based on C and other ideas and languages that came
before. There have been many new languages since C++ and many many new ones
since C. Aside from "features" that are really nothing more than quirks or
bad design, are you really suggesting a language written 20 years ago based
on a language written 20 years or so before that has features other
languages don't offer? That would be interesting!

Are you being pedantic and suggesting C++ has features that aren't presented
exactly the same way in other languages, or are you suggesting C++ really
has features that have no equivalents in other languages, or ??? 

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

#19141

Op 20-Oct-12 22:41, Fritz Wuehler schreef:
> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>
> most of what you wrote is agreeable, snipped...
>
>> Also, C++ does have some features that are not offered by other languages.
>
> This is hard to believe. Would you be inclined to name a few? I'm not a
> C/C++ guy so I'll have to check but I really find it difficult to believe C
> or C++ could offer anything that isn't offered by other languages for a few
> reasons:
>
> C is not the oldest language, therefore it was based on ideas and languages
> that came before. C++ is based on C and other ideas and languages that came
> before. There have been many new languages since C++ and many many new ones
> since C. Aside from "features" that are really nothing more than quirks or
> bad design, are you really suggesting a language written 20 years ago based
> on a language written 20 years or so before that has features other
> languages don't offer? That would be interesting!
>
> Are you being pedantic and suggesting C++ has features that aren't presented
> exactly the same way in other languages, or are you suggesting C++ really
> has features that have no equivalents in other languages, or ???

I don't know every programing language in existence, but as far as know 
there aren't that many programming languages that support RAII 
(deterministic destructors) and templates like C++ does.

Also C++ has evolved significantly over the last 20 years. The C++ 
language I learned C++ 20 years ago is very different from C++ as we 
know it today. 20 years ago C++ was little more than C with classes; no 
templates, no standard library (or STL), no exceptions...etc.

One cannot consider programming language features in isolation; the 
necessity/added-value of a feature and even if possibility of adding a 
feature depends on the language as a whole. Reasons that other 
programming languages do no support a certain features may be due to 
that it doesn't fit in well with other parts of the language (e.g. 
deterministic destructors), or that the language designer opted for a 
much less powerful but simpler alternative (e.g. generics instead of 
templates), or that the language designer doesn't believe that the 
feature is a good idea (e.g. operator overloading), or even leave a 
feature out entirely because other aspects of the language make the 
feature unnecessary (e.g. a dynamically typed language has little use 
for templates or generics).

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

#19152

In comp.lang.c++ Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>> Also, C++ does have some features that are not offered by other languages.
> 
> This is hard to believe. Would you be inclined to name a few?

By "other languages" I was referring to the ones popularly used.

For example RAII *is* offered by some other languages (eg. if I remember
correctly ADA might have had it), but those tend to be either obscure
languages that nobody uses, or have fallen almost completely out of usage
in practice (except in very narrow and specific industries, eg. with ADA.)

(And no, this was not an argument on whether RAII is better than automatic
GC. That was not the point.)

It's hard to classify if any language offers the same functionality as
C++ templates do (regardless of what you think about their syntax; I'm
talking purely about the functionality here.) There are certainly some
languages (especially some functional ones) which you might argue offer
the same functionality, although using a rather different approach. But
even then there often are radical differences.

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

#19175

On Thu, 2012-10-18, William Ahern wrote:
> In comp.lang.c Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> wrote:
>> On 10/18/12 James Kuyper wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > I'm primarily a C programmer, so I may be
>> > missing out some elegant C++ way of doing that, but the following
>> > inelegant (and untested) code should do the job:
>> [snip]
>
>> I'm intrigued. I have never ever met someone who described himself as a C
>> programmer. May I ask what kind of business you are in? My guess is your
>> line of work includes either device drivers, embedded devices, kernel code
>> or something else that forces you to write C instead of C++. In all these
>> years I have never met someone who used C instead of C++ unless he was
>> forced to do so.
>
> Well, you have now. I've worked in several shops (both small and billion
> dollar companies) which were C only by choice. The consensus was that the
> cost/benefit of C++ didn't pan out, particularly for backend, non-GUI work.

I've worked in those places too. Unlike you I believe they are
misguided, but I agree they exist and aren't unusual.

> I'm guessing that you come from a Windows background and/or graduated
> college in the past 3 or 4 years. That's usually how it goes, IME. C++
> didn't make waves in the Unix world until a few years ago, and then it took
> off with Google and Apple**, especially when they picked up their college
> recruitment. C++ grew up in Microsoft-land and in Microsoft-friendly
> universities which dumped SUN--or never had the history to begin with. Which
> isn't a slight, just an observation about the peculiarities of C++ culture.

I get the feeling (which may be incorrect) that you justify discarding
C++ by trying to associate it with Microsoft, and anti-Unix nonsense
in general.  Since I'm pro-Unix myself that annoys me.

There are /different/ C++ cultures, just like there are different C
cultures.  For me C++ fits very well into Unix programming[1]. It's
just like Unix programming in C, only with better tools such as the
standard containers, RAII and so on. I don't know what they do in the
Windows world ... seems to be most have spent many years down the
Java/.NET route until very recently.

/Jorgen

[1] One perhaps surprising reason is the Unix APIs are C API. That way
    I'm not tied to someone's antiquated ideas about how an
    object-oriented interface should work.  Sure, C APIs can feel
    primitive at times -- but at least a decent number of people know
    how do design them properly!

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#19180

On 12-10-21 12:33 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-18, William Ahern wrote:
>> In comp.lang.c Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> wrote:
>>> On 10/18/12 James Kuyper wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> I'm primarily a C programmer, so I may be
>>>> missing out some elegant C++ way of doing that, but the following
>>>> inelegant (and untested) code should do the job:
>>> [snip]
>>
>>> I'm intrigued. I have never ever met someone who described himself as a C
>>> programmer. May I ask what kind of business you are in? My guess is your
>>> line of work includes either device drivers, embedded devices, kernel code
>>> or something else that forces you to write C instead of C++. In all these
>>> years I have never met someone who used C instead of C++ unless he was
>>> forced to do so.
>>
>> Well, you have now. I've worked in several shops (both small and billion
>> dollar companies) which were C only by choice. The consensus was that the
>> cost/benefit of C++ didn't pan out, particularly for backend, non-GUI work.
>
> I've worked in those places too. Unlike you I believe they are
> misguided, but I agree they exist and aren't unusual.
>

What seems to be the real irony here is that it isn't 1992, though I'm 
getting a decided deja vu, but 2012 when this conversation should be 
taking place between C++ zealots and C# adherents (or maybe Java, 
Python, Ruby, erlang programmers et al).

I have worked on large scale projects in both C++ and C and prefer C 
however misguided you may feel that makes me. On the other hand there 
are projects for which I prefer to use other languages. C++ isn't on my 
goto list, pun intended.

Horse for courses I guess. I'm quite fond of erlang for instance though 
I don't believe you should learn it as I'm sure you can accomplish what 
you need to do in C++, however, there are a whole lot of things it does 
very well and with a fraction of the effort required by C++. Still, I 
don't suppose the sky will fall in on comp.lang.c++ any more then it has 
on comp.lang.c.

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

#19215

On Sun, 2012-10-21, Greg Martin wrote:
> On 12-10-21 12:33 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-10-18, William Ahern wrote:
>>> In comp.lang.c Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> wrote:
>>>> On 10/18/12 James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> I'm primarily a C programmer, so I may be
>>>>> missing out some elegant C++ way of doing that, but the following
>>>>> inelegant (and untested) code should do the job:
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> I'm intrigued. I have never ever met someone who described himself as a C
>>>> programmer. May I ask what kind of business you are in? My guess is your
>>>> line of work includes either device drivers, embedded devices, kernel code
>>>> or something else that forces you to write C instead of C++. In all these
>>>> years I have never met someone who used C instead of C++ unless he was
>>>> forced to do so.
>>>
>>> Well, you have now. I've worked in several shops (both small and billion
>>> dollar companies) which were C only by choice. The consensus was that the
>>> cost/benefit of C++ didn't pan out, particularly for backend, non-GUI work.
>>
>> I've worked in those places too. Unlike you I believe they are
>> misguided, but I agree they exist and aren't unusual.
>>
>
> What seems to be the real irony here is that it isn't 1992, though I'm 
> getting a decided deja vu, but 2012 when this conversation should be 
> taking place between C++ zealots and C# adherents (or maybe Java, 
> Python, Ruby, erlang programmers et al).

I don't quite get your point here.  It's obviously not "C should have
died some time after 1992".

(For what it's worth, if I had a time machine I'd go back to 1992 and
tell people to stay off C++ for a few more years until the standard
library was in place, and templates widely understood. I have a
feeling many bad practices and much bad reputation came in that time
frame.)

> I have worked on large scale projects in both C++ and C and prefer C 
> however misguided you may feel that makes me.
...
> I'm quite fond of erlang for instance though 
> I don't believe you should learn it as I'm sure you can accomplish what 
> you need to do in C++

I just stated that I prefer C++ to C, not that C++ is better than all
other languages at everything!

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#19217

Op 23-Oct-12 17:44, Jorgen Grahn schreef:
> On Sun, 2012-10-21, Greg Martin wrote:

>> What seems to be the real irony here is that it isn't 1992, though I'm
>> getting a decided deja vu, but 2012 when this conversation should be
>> taking place between C++ zealots and C# adherents (or maybe Java,
>> Python, Ruby, erlang programmers et al).
>
> I don't quite get your point here.  It's obviously not "C should have
> died some time after 1992".
>
> (For what it's worth, if I had a time machine I'd go back to 1992 and
> tell people to stay off C++ for a few more years until the standard
> library was in place, and templates widely understood. I have a
> feeling many bad practices and much bad reputation came in that time
> frame.)

It would probably also have prevented many C++ libraries from 
implementing their own string and container classes. This is one thing I 
dislike about C++.

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

#19225

On 23-Oct-12 Jorgen Grahn wrote:
[snip]
>> (For what it's worth, if I had a time machine I'd go back to 1992 and
>> tell people to stay off C++ for a few more years until the standard
>> library was in place, and templates widely understood. I have a
>> feeling many bad practices and much bad reputation came in that time
>> frame.)

On 10/23/12 Dombo wrote:
> It would probably also have prevented many C++ libraries from
> implementing their own string and container classes. This is one thing I
> dislike about C++.

+1.

I took an immediate dislike to qt because it seemed as if they had to 
reinvent the wheel not only once but many times. Later I realized that 
they wanted to have a copy-on-write semantics for their strings, which 
could not be achieved with std::string at that time.

Now that std::string supports copy-on-write, too, noone on the qt team 
seems inclined to remove the superfluous qtString class.

Even Microsoft still uses CObject as base class for all classes of their 
MFC library, even though the whole purpose of this class was to provide 
run-time type information.

I guess that is just the way large projects are.

Regards,
Stuart

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

#19229

Op 24-Oct-12 12:01, Stuart schreef:
> On 23-Oct-12 Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> [snip]
>>> (For what it's worth, if I had a time machine I'd go back to 1992 and
>>> tell people to stay off C++ for a few more years until the standard
>>> library was in place, and templates widely understood. I have a
>>> feeling many bad practices and much bad reputation came in that time
>>> frame.)
>
> On 10/23/12 Dombo wrote:
>> It would probably also have prevented many C++ libraries from
>> implementing their own string and container classes. This is one thing I
>> dislike about C++.
>
> +1.
>
> I took an immediate dislike to qt because it seemed as if they had to
> reinvent the wheel not only once but many times. Later I realized that
> they wanted to have a copy-on-write semantics for their strings, which
> could not be achieved with std::string at that time.
>
> Now that std::string supports copy-on-write, too, noone on the qt team
> seems inclined to remove the superfluous qtString class.
>
> Even Microsoft still uses CObject as base class for all classes of their
> MFC library, even though the whole purpose of this class was to provide
> run-time type information.

Though there were valid reasons at the time for libraries to provide 
their own string and container classes, it is a shame many 
C++programmers still have to deal with this unfortunate legacy.

The main thing I hate is that when you use multiple libraries each with 
their own string and container classes (and naming conventions, 
idioms...etc), you have to write code to convert between various 
classes. This is a waste of both programmer- and execution time.

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

#19125

On Oct 18, 8:55 am, Stuart <DerTop...@web.de> wrote:
> On 10/18/12 James Kuyper wrote:
> [snip]> I'm primarily a C programmer, so I may be
> > missing out some elegant C++ way of doing that, but the following
> > inelegant (and untested) code should do the job:
>
> [snip]
>
> I'm intrigued. I have never ever met someone who described himself as a
> C programmer. May I ask what kind of business you are in? My guess is
> your line of work includes either device drivers, embedded devices,
> kernel code or something else that forces you to write C instead of C++.
> In all these years I have never met someone who used C instead of C++
> unless he was forced to do so.

seriously? I know quite a few people who are C programmers. Most are
embedded but not all.

I can see the appeal. I know pretty much all of C. I only know a large
percentage of C++. I haven't got round to the new C++ standard. I
don't know every little corner of the standard library and I certainly
don't know boost! Do you write exception safe code?

Please don't mention template-meta-programming...

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

#19153

In comp.lang.c++ Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I can see the appeal. I know pretty much all of C. I only know a large
> percentage of C++. I haven't got round to the new C++ standard. I
> don't know every little corner of the standard library and I certainly
> don't know boost! Do you write exception safe code?

That last question is really odd at the end of the paragraph that's
otherwise talking about something else entirely. Care to explain?

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

#19272

On Oct 21, 8:25 am, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.lang.c++ Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I can see the appeal. I know pretty much all of C. I only know a large
> > percentage of C++. I haven't got round to the new C++ standard. I
> > don't know every little corner of the standard library and I certainly
> > don't know boost! Do you write exception safe code?
>
> That last question is really odd at the end of the paragraph that's
> otherwise talking about something else entirely. Care to explain?

I wondered how good a C++ programmer he was. I see a fair amount of C+
+ code that news multiple items and deletes them in the destructor.
That defines non-trivial destructors but not assignment or copy
construction. Code that sprinkles try-catch about seemingly at random.
Writing *good* C++ isn't hard but it requires some basic knowledge.

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

#19572

On Oct 18, 8:55 pm, Stuart <DerTop...@web.de> wrote:
> I'm intrigued. I have never ever met someone who described himself as a
> C programmer. May I ask what kind of business you are in?

I describe myself as a C programmer too, and am
available to field questions :)

I write application code for payment terminals. You have to
use the toolset that the hardware vendor provides for
developing code that can interface with its OS, typically
this is some arcane modification of C with fairly stringent
memory requirements.

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

#19574

In comp.lang.c Old Wolf <oldwolf@inspire.net.nz> wrote:

> I write application code for payment terminals.

What vendor and platform?

-- 
Gof
http://www.chmurka.net/

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

#19037

On 10/18/12 10:47, gus gassmann wrote:
>
>               myStruct = new MyStruct[ndim];
>               for (int i=0; i<  ndim; i++)
>               {
>                   myStruct[i] = {{(const)(get_str().c_str()), 0,
> get_int()}};
>               }

As others have correctly pointed out, the mistyped cast from std::string 
will end in tears.  You need to convert the string to an char array and 
keep track of that data for later disposal.

Something like this my help:

struct FromString
{
   static std::vector<char*> stash;

   char *p;

   FromString( const std::string& s )
     : p(new char[s.size()])
   {
     s.copy(p, s.size());
     stash.push_back(p);
   }

   operator char*() const { return p; }
};

std::vector<char*> FromString::stash;  // *free these later!!*

Then you could write:

   for (int i=0; i < ndim; i++)
   {
     MyStruct temp = {FromString(get_str()), 0, get_int()};
     myStruct[i] = temp;
   }

Note I kept the temporary variable to avoid the use C++11 extended 
initialiser lists.

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#19038

In comp.lang.c++ Noob <root@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> If the size of the array is not known at compile-time, then you
> need dynamic memory allocation.

Incorrect. In C you can use a variable-length array, such as:

    void foo(int n)
    {
        SomeStruct s[n];
        ...
    }

However, that's probably not what the OP meant because he explicitly
wanted to use an initializer list to initialize the array. Therefore
he probably didn't mean to imply that the size of the array is only
known at runtime.

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

#19046

Juha Nieminen wrote:

> In comp.lang.c++ Noob wrote:
> 
>> If the size of the array is not known at compile-time, then you
>> need dynamic memory allocation.
> 
> Incorrect. In C you can use a variable-length array, such as:
> 
>     void foo(int n)
>     {
>         SomeStruct s[n];
>         ...
>     }

VLAs have automatic storage duration. They are therefore not appropriate
for the OP's purpose.

> However, that's probably not what the OP meant because he explicitly
> wanted to use an initializer list to initialize the array. Therefore
> he probably didn't mean to imply that the size of the array is only
> known at runtime.

Right, except for the fact that he wrote:

"I need to set dynamic values [...] where both the values and the number
of values are only known at runtime."

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

Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8  Next page →

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

csiph-web