Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #44552 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-29 12:06 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-09-08 02:16 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 64 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
"Unicode" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 12:06 -0500
Re: "Unicode" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 11:52 -0700
Re: "Unicode" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 12:24 -0500
Re: "Unicode" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-08-30 18:50 +0000
Re: "Unicode" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 14:11 -0500
Re: "Unicode" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-08-30 19:44 +0000
Re: "Unicode" Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-30 21:29 +0100
Re: "Unicode" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-08-31 20:31 +0000
Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 01:50 +0200
Re: "Unicode" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 18:47 -0700
Re: "Unicode" "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-09-01 06:01 -0500
Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 23:06 -0400
Re: "Unicode" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-01 15:21 +1200
Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 15:07 -0400
Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 08:02 +0200
Re: "Unicode" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-09-01 18:46 +0000
Re: "Unicode" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-01 10:09 +0200
Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 17:58 +0100
Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 15:08 -0400
Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 21:20 +0100
Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 20:52 -0400
Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 14:44 +0100
Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 10:10 -0400
Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 16:35 +0100
Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 12:26 -0400
Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 17:02 +0100
Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 12:33 -0400
Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 17:53 +0100
Re: "Unicode" Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 19:20 +0100
Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 16:36 -0400
Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 21:45 +0100
Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 19:57 -0400
Re: "Unicode" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-09-01 18:45 +0000
Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 15:11 -0400
Re: "Unicode" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-01 22:27 +0200
Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 21:37 +0100
Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 20:53 -0400
Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 05:57 +0200
Re: "Unicode" Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> - 2016-08-30 21:30 +0200
Re: "Unicode" Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> - 2016-08-30 21:40 +0200
Re: "Unicode" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 13:39 -0700
Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 21:54 +0100
Re: "Unicode" raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-09-03 08:00 +0000
Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-03 14:10 -0500
Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 09:56 +0200
Re: "Unicode" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-09-04 14:37 +0300
Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 12:53 +0200
Re: "Unicode" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-09-05 15:30 +0300
Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 16:13 +0200
Re: "Unicode" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-09-05 22:03 +0300
Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 23:54 +0200
Re: "Unicode" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-05 15:35 -0700
Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 00:18 +0200
Re: "Unicode" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-05 16:17 -0700
Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 01:20 +0200
Re: "Unicode" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-05 17:16 -0700
Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 02:42 +0200
Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-05 23:05 +0100
Re: "Unicode" Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-04 21:37 +0100
Re: "Unicode" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-09-05 00:22 +0300
Re: "Unicode" Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-05 21:32 +0100
Re: "Unicode" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-09-06 00:00 +0300
Re: "Unicode" Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-07 21:19 +0100
Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 02:16 +0200
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 20:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nqaig9$kb5$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #44701 |
On 9/1/2016 4:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 01/09/2016 20:08, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 9/1/2016 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On 01/09/2016 04:06, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 8/31/2016 7:50 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: >>>>> On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote: >>>>>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] >>>>>> >>>>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code >>>>>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly: >>>>>> >>>>>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not >>>>>>> necessary to >>>>>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized. The >>>>>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more >>>>> >>>>> Uhm, that's bollocks. >>>>> >>>>> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a >>>>> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry, Richard is correct. C++98 was NOT the first standard. >>>> >>> >>> C++98 was the first C++ standard. >>> >>> I see the scope of your fractal wrongness is very wide indeed; I wonder >>> if there is a topic that your are NOT fractally wrong about? >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> And once again you show your head is so far up your arse that you can >> see your tonsils. >> >> ANSI/IOC are NOT the only recognized standards in the world! > > Isn't it blindingly obvious that when someone uses the term "C++ > standard" they are referring to a C++ ISO standard? Your fractal > wrongness does indeed run deep, fractally deep. > > /Flibble > Nope. ISO is not the only standard in the world - and was not the only recognized C++ standard. But once again you're just showing you're no more than a stoopid troll. Nothing new here. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 14:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2sWdncYqZcnYH1TKnZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #44712 |
On 02/09/2016 01:52, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 9/1/2016 4:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On 01/09/2016 20:08, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 9/1/2016 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On 01/09/2016 04:06, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 8/31/2016 7:50 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: >>>>>> On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote: >>>>>>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code >>>>>>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not >>>>>>>> necessary to >>>>>>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized. The >>>>>>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more >>>>>> >>>>>> Uhm, that's bollocks. >>>>>> >>>>>> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a >>>>>> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, Richard is correct. C++98 was NOT the first standard. >>>>> >>>> >>>> C++98 was the first C++ standard. >>>> >>>> I see the scope of your fractal wrongness is very wide indeed; I wonder >>>> if there is a topic that your are NOT fractally wrong about? >>>> >>>> /Flibble >>>> >>> >>> And once again you show your head is so far up your arse that you can >>> see your tonsils. >>> >>> ANSI/IOC are NOT the only recognized standards in the world! >> >> Isn't it blindingly obvious that when someone uses the term "C++ >> standard" they are referring to a C++ ISO standard? Your fractal >> wrongness does indeed run deep, fractally deep. >> >> /Flibble >> > > Nope. ISO is not the only standard in the world - and was not the only > recognized C++ standard. Fractal wrongness: the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness > > But once again you're just showing you're no more than a stoopid troll. > Nothing new here. Project much mate? /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 10:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nqc17o$ng3$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #44736 |
On 9/2/2016 9:44 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 02/09/2016 01:52, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 9/1/2016 4:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On 01/09/2016 20:08, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 9/1/2016 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On 01/09/2016 04:06, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> On 8/31/2016 7:50 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: >>>>>>> On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote: >>>>>>>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret >>>>>>>> code >>>>>>>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not >>>>>>>>> necessary to >>>>>>>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized. The >>>>>>>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Uhm, that's bollocks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a >>>>>>> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, Richard is correct. C++98 was NOT the first standard. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> C++98 was the first C++ standard. >>>>> >>>>> I see the scope of your fractal wrongness is very wide indeed; I >>>>> wonder >>>>> if there is a topic that your are NOT fractally wrong about? >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> >>>> And once again you show your head is so far up your arse that you can >>>> see your tonsils. >>>> >>>> ANSI/IOC are NOT the only recognized standards in the world! >>> >>> Isn't it blindingly obvious that when someone uses the term "C++ >>> standard" they are referring to a C++ ISO standard? Your fractal >>> wrongness does indeed run deep, fractally deep. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> Nope. ISO is not the only standard in the world - and was not the only >> recognized C++ standard. > > Fractal wrongness: the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale > of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's > worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small > part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole > worldview. > > http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness > ROFLMAO! You are completely clueless, as usual. But that's not surprising for a stoopid troll (which you yourself have shown to be). >> >> But once again you're just showing you're no more than a stoopid troll. >> Nothing new here. > > Project much mate? > > /Flibble > > Yes, you do project a lot. But that's what trolls do. And you've proven yourself to be one. Not a very good one, but a funny one at times. You don't even know C++ now - and never were programming in C++ before the C98 standard came out. How would you know? And according to you, Java has no standard because there is not an IOS standard. However, Oracle and millions of programmers around the world would disagree with you. But you'd claim to be right on that, also. What's next - the sun rising in the west? Or does that happen only in the Southern Hemisphere? It's no wonder you've never been able to get a decent job. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 16:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMWdnUUCaZPZAVTKnZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #44737 |
On 02/09/2016 15:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote: [snip] > Yes, you do project a lot. But that's what trolls do. And you've > proven yourself to be one. Not a very good one, but a funny one at times. > > You don't even know C++ now - and never were programming in C++ before > the C98 standard came out. How would you know? > > And according to you, Java has no standard because there is not an IOS > standard. However, Oracle and millions of programmers around the world > would disagree with you. > > But you'd claim to be right on that, also. What's next - the sun rising > in the west? Or does that happen only in the Southern Hemisphere? > > It's no wonder you've never been able to get a decent job. > Fractal wrongness: the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 12:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nqc98a$jqj$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #44739 |
On 9/2/2016 11:35 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 02/09/2016 15:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > [snip] >> Yes, you do project a lot. But that's what trolls do. And you've >> proven yourself to be one. Not a very good one, but a funny one at >> times. >> >> You don't even know C++ now - and never were programming in C++ before >> the C98 standard came out. How would you know? >> >> And according to you, Java has no standard because there is not an IOS >> standard. However, Oracle and millions of programmers around the world >> would disagree with you. >> >> But you'd claim to be right on that, also. What's next - the sun rising >> in the west? Or does that happen only in the Southern Hemisphere? >> >> It's no wonder you've never been able to get a decent job. >> > > Fractal wrongness: the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale > of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's > worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small > part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole > worldview. > > http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness > > /Flibble You keep saying that. But that doesn't make it true. Your inability to get a decent job, however, is true. So are your demonstrated lack of C++ knowledge and that you are a troll. You keep trying. But it doesn't work. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 17:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ovKdnVDwXdIOP1TKnZ2dnUU7-cPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #44737 |
On 02/09/2016 15:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote: [snip] > Yes, you do project a lot. But that's what trolls do. And you've > proven yourself to be one. Not a very good one, but a funny one at times. You even project projection; you are in serious need of medication. > > You don't even know C++ now - and never were programming in C++ before > the C98 standard came out. How would you know? I don't know C++? Funny but https://github.com/FlibbleMr/ is entirely my own work and I use C++ every day at work as a senior software engineer. These are surely amazing feats for someone who doesn't know C++. I have been coding in C++ since 1993 (five years before the FIRST C++ ISO standard). > > And according to you, Java has no standard because there is not an IOS > standard. However, Oracle and millions of programmers around the world > would disagree with you. Java is off topic however I'll bite: what you are talking about are called "de facto standards" not "standards". > > But you'd claim to be right on that, also. What's next - the sun rising > in the west? Or does that happen only in the Southern Hemisphere? Strawman. > > It's no wonder you've never been able to get a decent job. Whether or not any of my jobs were/are "decent" is highly subjective. I was a member of the tiger team for and I wrote a fair bit of the software for the world's first smartphone (the Ericsson R380); is that "decent" enough for you? /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 12:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nqc9jp$mer$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #44745 |
On 9/2/2016 12:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 02/09/2016 15:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > [snip] >> Yes, you do project a lot. But that's what trolls do. And you've >> proven yourself to be one. Not a very good one, but a funny one at >> times. > > You even project projection; you are in serious need of medication. > Nope. You have proven youself time and time again to be a trill. >> >> You don't even know C++ now - and never were programming in C++ before >> the C98 standard came out. How would you know? > > I don't know C++? Funny but https://github.com/FlibbleMr/ is entirely my > own work and I use C++ every day at work as a senior software engineer. > These are surely amazing feats for someone who doesn't know C++. > > I have been coding in C++ since 1993 (five years before the FIRST C++ > ISO standard). > ROFLMAO! So you've been coding C++ since 1993. Maybe one of these days you'll get it right. I doubt it, though. You've already proven yourself to be hopeless. And BTW - I've been programing C++ since 1988 - one year after the first commercial compiler from AT&T was released in (in beta form). >> >> And according to you, Java has no standard because there is not an IOS >> standard. However, Oracle and millions of programmers around the world >> would disagree with you. > > Java is off topic however I'll bite: what you are talking about are > called "de facto standards" not "standards". > Nope, they are standards. The fact the standards aren't issued by ISO does not mean they are not standards. >> >> But you'd claim to be right on that, also. What's next - the sun rising >> in the west? Or does that happen only in the Southern Hemisphere? > > Strawman. > No, a serious question for you. Maybe you can google it. >> >> It's no wonder you've never been able to get a decent job. > > Whether or not any of my jobs were/are "decent" is highly subjective. I > was a member of the tiger team for and I wrote a fair bit of the > software for the world's first smartphone (the Ericsson R380); is that > "decent" enough for you? > > /Flibble So you claim. You wouldn't last two weeks on any competent team. But then how many smartphones is Ericsson making now? That was a huge success, wasn't it? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 17:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6tGdnbMIgr4ZM1TKnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #44747 |
On 02/09/2016 17:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 9/2/2016 12:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On 02/09/2016 15:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> [snip] >>> Yes, you do project a lot. But that's what trolls do. And you've >>> proven yourself to be one. Not a very good one, but a funny one at >>> times. >> >> You even project projection; you are in serious need of medication. >> > > Nope. You have proven youself time and time again to be a trill. Youself? Trill? Are you having a stroke now? Can't get your troll out quick enough eh mate? > >>> >>> You don't even know C++ now - and never were programming in C++ before >>> the C98 standard came out. How would you know? >> >> I don't know C++? Funny but https://github.com/FlibbleMr/ is entirely my >> own work and I use C++ every day at work as a senior software engineer. >> These are surely amazing feats for someone who doesn't know C++. >> >> I have been coding in C++ since 1993 (five years before the FIRST C++ >> ISO standard). >> > > ROFLMAO! So you've been coding C++ since 1993. Maybe one of these days > you'll get it right. I doubt it, though. You've already proven > yourself to be hopeless. I repeat: https://github.com/FlibbleMr/ is entirely my own work and I use C++ every day at work as a senior software engineer. These are surely amazing feats for someone "who doesn't know C++" and/or "is hopeless" and can't "get it right". > > And BTW - I've been programing C++ since 1988 - one year after the first > commercial compiler from AT&T was released in (in beta form). I am amazed that someone with your claimed experience can seemingly do nothing but troll others on Usenet. > >>> >>> And according to you, Java has no standard because there is not an IOS >>> standard. However, Oracle and millions of programmers around the world >>> would disagree with you. >> >> Java is off topic however I'll bite: what you are talking about are >> called "de facto standards" not "standards". >> > > Nope, they are standards. The fact the standards aren't issued by ISO > does not mean they are not standards. Yep, a de facto standard is not the same thing as a standard. > >>> >>> But you'd claim to be right on that, also. What's next - the sun rising >>> in the west? Or does that happen only in the Southern Hemisphere? >> >> Strawman. >> > > No, a serious question for you. Maybe you can google it. No, it is a strawman. > >>> >>> It's no wonder you've never been able to get a decent job. >> >> Whether or not any of my jobs were/are "decent" is highly subjective. I >> was a member of the tiger team for and I wrote a fair bit of the >> software for the world's first smartphone (the Ericsson R380); is that >> "decent" enough for you? >> >> /Flibble > > > So you claim. You wouldn't last two weeks on any competent team. You keep making these groundless assertions based on no evidence all the time, why do you do it? You know it just makes you look like an idiot right? All the teams I have worked with were competent and I was a member of them for years and left them on my own terms. > > But then how many smartphones is Ericsson making now? That was a huge > success, wasn't it? Yes it was a success actually. I left Sony Ericsson in 2003 and they continued to be successful for several years after that. Sony Ericsson's mistake was sticking with Symbian OS rather than embracing Android when it was clear that that was where the smart money was going. Nevertheless Sony Ericsson was folded back into Sony Mobile and they continue to do quite well now. Sony Android phones are great. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 19:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87poomupsp.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #44751 |
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: >> >> And BTW - I've been programing C++ since 1988 - one year after the first >> commercial compiler from AT&T was released in (in beta form). > > I am amazed that someone with your claimed experience can seemingly do > nothing but troll others on Usenet. That's a bit harsh. Those consulting companies didn't bankrupt themselves, you know
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 16:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nqcns1$a3g$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #44751 |
On 9/2/2016 12:53 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 02/09/2016 17:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 9/2/2016 12:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On 02/09/2016 15:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> [snip] >>>> Yes, you do project a lot. But that's what trolls do. And you've >>>> proven yourself to be one. Not a very good one, but a funny one at >>>> times. >>> >>> You even project projection; you are in serious need of medication. >>> >> >> Nope. You have proven youself time and time again to be a trill. > > Youself? Trill? Are you having a stroke now? Can't get your troll out > quick enough eh mate? > ROFLMAO! Another stoopid comment by a stoopid troll. But in your case, "trill" might be a better description! >> >>>> >>>> You don't even know C++ now - and never were programming in C++ before >>>> the C98 standard came out. How would you know? >>> >>> I don't know C++? Funny but https://github.com/FlibbleMr/ is entirely my >>> own work and I use C++ every day at work as a senior software engineer. >>> These are surely amazing feats for someone who doesn't know C++. >>> >>> I have been coding in C++ since 1993 (five years before the FIRST C++ >>> ISO standard). >>> >> >> ROFLMAO! So you've been coding C++ since 1993. Maybe one of these days >> you'll get it right. I doubt it, though. You've already proven >> yourself to be hopeless. > > I repeat: https://github.com/FlibbleMr/ is entirely my own work and I > use C++ every day at work as a senior software engineer. These are > surely amazing feats for someone "who doesn't know C++" and/or "is > hopeless" and can't "get it right". > Yup, and pretty crappy work, at that. I'd be embarrassed to claim work like that. >> >> And BTW - I've been programing C++ since 1988 - one year after the first >> commercial compiler from AT&T was released in (in beta form). > > I am amazed that someone with your claimed experience can seemingly do > nothing but troll others on Usenet. > This from a proven troll! >> >>>> >>>> And according to you, Java has no standard because there is not an IOS >>>> standard. However, Oracle and millions of programmers around the world >>>> would disagree with you. >>> >>> Java is off topic however I'll bite: what you are talking about are >>> called "de facto standards" not "standards". >>> >> >> Nope, they are standards. The fact the standards aren't issued by ISO >> does not mean they are not standards. > > Yep, a de facto standard is not the same thing as a standard. > A standard is a standard. Period. >> >>>> >>>> But you'd claim to be right on that, also. What's next - the sun >>>> rising >>>> in the west? Or does that happen only in the Southern Hemisphere? >>> >>> Strawman. >>> >> >> No, a serious question for you. Maybe you can google it. > > No, it is a strawman. > Nope. A serious question - but obviously one you can't answer! But then you don't know what a strawman is either, do you? >> >>>> >>>> It's no wonder you've never been able to get a decent job. >>> >>> Whether or not any of my jobs were/are "decent" is highly subjective. I >>> was a member of the tiger team for and I wrote a fair bit of the >>> software for the world's first smartphone (the Ericsson R380); is that >>> "decent" enough for you? >>> >>> /Flibble >> >> >> So you claim. You wouldn't last two weeks on any competent team. > > You keep making these groundless assertions based on no evidence all the > time, why do you do it? You know it just makes you look like an idiot > right? > > All the teams I have worked with were competent and I was a member of > them for years and left them on my own terms. > Your posts in this and other newsgroups speak otherwise. I don't know a single team I've ever worked with who would hire you. >> >> But then how many smartphones is Ericsson making now? That was a huge >> success, wasn't it? > > Yes it was a success actually. I left Sony Ericsson in 2003 and they > continued to be successful for several years after that. Sony Ericsson's > mistake was sticking with Symbian OS rather than embracing Android when > it was clear that that was where the smart money was going. Nevertheless > Sony Ericsson was folded back into Sony Mobile and they continue to do > quite well now. Sony Android phones are great. > > /Flibble > You got your arse fired for incompetence, you mean. Which is why you've never been able to get a decent job since then. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 21:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uoWdnSQiW6NleVTKnZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #44760 |
On 02/09/2016 21:36, Jerry Stuckle wrote: [snip] > > You got your arse fired for incompetence, you mean. Which is why you've > never been able to get a decent job since then. I thought I never had a decent job mate? Backtracking are we? I was at Ericsson/Sony Ericsson for over four years .. if I was "incompetent" I wouldn't have lasted five minutes. BTW I have never been fired from a job in my entire life and my current job is certainly "decent". So how many of your consultancy companies when bankrupt again? /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 19:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nqd3l3$fab$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #44762 |
On 9/2/2016 4:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 02/09/2016 21:36, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > [snip] >> >> You got your arse fired for incompetence, you mean. Which is why you've >> never been able to get a decent job since then. > > I thought I never had a decent job mate? Backtracking are we? I was at > Ericsson/Sony Ericsson for over four years .. if I was "incompetent" I > wouldn't have lasted five minutes. BTW I have never been fired from a > job in my entire life and my current job is certainly "decent". > > So how many of your consultancy companies when bankrupt again? > > /Flibble > > Nope, you didn't. The only one you could have possibly had you got fired. And you just proved it. Just like a troll. And none of my consultancy companies have gone bankrupt. I probably make more in a day than you do in a week. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nq9t0b$qo$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #44645 |
[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> spake the secret code
<nq7qgl$9ts$1@dont-email.me> thusly:
>On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote:
>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>
>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code
>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly:
>>
>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to
>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...]
>>
>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized. The
>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more
>
>Uhm, that's bollocks.
>
>One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a
>standardization with more pure innovation than C++98.
>
>Namespaces, exceptions, most of the standard library. Even compared to
>the ARM it was extreme. Compiler vendors had a hard time catching up,
>authors detailed their choices of practically necessary compatibility
>trade-offs so as to not confer wrong impressions to their readers.
>> than it was introducing fundamental changes to the language.
>
>Uhm, ditto. Sorry.
Alf, I respect your viewpoint, so I'll stand corrected on that. It
was my impression that standardization was more about codifying
existing practice at the time. Do you happen to have any links to
discussions/papers by Stroustrup at the time of the 98
standardization effort?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 15:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nq9ug8$ktb$3@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #44689 |
On 9/1/2016 2:45 PM, Richard wrote: > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] > > "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> spake the secret code > <nq7qgl$9ts$1@dont-email.me> thusly: > >> On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote: >>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] >>> >>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code >>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly: >>> >>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to >>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...] >>> >>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized. The >>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more >> >> Uhm, that's bollocks. >> >> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a >> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98. >> >> Namespaces, exceptions, most of the standard library. Even compared to >> the ARM it was extreme. Compiler vendors had a hard time catching up, >> authors detailed their choices of practically necessary compatibility >> trade-offs so as to not confer wrong impressions to their readers. >>> than it was introducing fundamental changes to the language. >> >> Uhm, ditto. Sorry. > > Alf, I respect your viewpoint, so I'll stand corrected on that. It > was my impression that standardization was more about codifying > existing practice at the time. Do you happen to have any links to > discussions/papers by Stroustrup at the time of the 98 > standardization effort? > The 3rd edition of Stroustrup's book came out in 1997, and had a lot of influence on the C++ standard being developed at the time - and vice versa. It's probably the most reliable reference. I don't know of other discussions/papers by him from that time off-hand. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 22:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nqa2vc$6ts$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #44689 |
On 01/09/16 20:45, Richard wrote: > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] > > "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> spake the secret code > <nq7qgl$9ts$1@dont-email.me> thusly: > >> On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote: >>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] >>> >>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code >>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly: >>> >>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to >>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...] >>> >>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized. The >>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more >> >> Uhm, that's bollocks. >> >> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a >> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98. >> >> Namespaces, exceptions, most of the standard library. Even compared to >> the ARM it was extreme. Compiler vendors had a hard time catching up, >> authors detailed their choices of practically necessary compatibility >> trade-offs so as to not confer wrong impressions to their readers. >>> than it was introducing fundamental changes to the language. >> >> Uhm, ditto. Sorry. > > Alf, I respect your viewpoint, so I'll stand corrected on that. It > was my impression that standardization was more about codifying > existing practice at the time. Do you happen to have any links to > discussions/papers by Stroustrup at the time of the 98 > standardization effort? > Bjarne Stroustrup has quite a lot of information, faqs, links, and papers on his webpage: <http://www.stroustrup.com/C++.html> There is a section on "design and history", which is as definitive a reference as any. (And note to Jerry - Stroustrup talks about the ARM as a step towards standardisation and a basis for a standard, but considers the ANSI/ISO standards to be the point at which the language actually has a proper standard.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 21:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <AKednezv_bQ8DFXKnZ2dnUU7-f-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #44702 |
On 01/09/2016 21:27, David Brown wrote: > > (And note to Jerry - Stroustrup talks about the ARM as a step towards > standardisation and a basis for a standard, but considers the ANSI/ISO > standards to be the point at which the language actually has a proper > standard.) No doubt Mr Stuckle will now tell us the difference between "a standard" and "the standard" and of course he will be fractally wrong in what he says yet again. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 20:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nqaiia$kb5$3@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #44702 |
On 9/1/2016 4:27 PM, David Brown wrote: > On 01/09/16 20:45, Richard wrote: >> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] >> >> "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> spake the secret >> code >> <nq7qgl$9ts$1@dont-email.me> thusly: >> >>> On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote: >>>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] >>>> >>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code >>>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly: >>>> >>>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to >>>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...] >>>> >>>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized. The >>>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more >>> >>> Uhm, that's bollocks. >>> >>> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a >>> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98. >>> >>> Namespaces, exceptions, most of the standard library. Even compared to >>> the ARM it was extreme. Compiler vendors had a hard time catching up, >>> authors detailed their choices of practically necessary compatibility >>> trade-offs so as to not confer wrong impressions to their readers. >>>> than it was introducing fundamental changes to the language. >>> >>> Uhm, ditto. Sorry. >> >> Alf, I respect your viewpoint, so I'll stand corrected on that. It >> was my impression that standardization was more about codifying >> existing practice at the time. Do you happen to have any links to >> discussions/papers by Stroustrup at the time of the 98 >> standardization effort? >> > > Bjarne Stroustrup has quite a lot of information, faqs, links, and > papers on his webpage: > > <http://www.stroustrup.com/C++.html> > > There is a section on "design and history", which is as definitive a > reference as any. > > (And note to Jerry - Stroustrup talks about the ARM as a step towards > standardisation and a basis for a standard, but considers the ANSI/ISO > standards to be the point at which the language actually has a proper > standard.) > Maybe HE did. But the rest of the world considered his books to be the standard. This included AT&T, Microsoft, IBM, Borland... and many others. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 05:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nqatbl$e23$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #44689 |
On 01.09.2016 20:45, Richard wrote: > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] > > "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> spake the secret code > <nq7qgl$9ts$1@dont-email.me> thusly: >> [snip] >> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a >> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98. >> >> Namespaces, exceptions, most of the standard library. Even compared to >> the ARM it was extreme. Compiler vendors had a hard time catching up, >> authors detailed their choices of practically necessary compatibility >> trade-offs so as to not confer wrong impressions to their readers. >>> than it was introducing fundamental changes to the language. >> >> Uhm, ditto. Sorry. > > Alf, I respect your viewpoint, so I'll stand corrected on that. It > was my impression that standardization was more about codifying > existing practice at the time. Do you happen to have any links to > discussions/papers by Stroustrup at the time of the 98 > standardization effort? > Not sure why you want to limit the authors to Bjarne Stroustrup. E.g. Bjarne and Alexander Stepanov cooperated on bring the STL into the standard library, and I don't think Bjarne wrote an article about that. Anyway, from ¹Stroustrup's own web pages: • B. Stroustrup: The C++ Programming Language (3rd Edition). Addison-Wesley Longman. Reading Mass. USA. 1997. ISBN 0-201-88954-4. • B. Stroustrup: A perspective on Concurrency and C++. in Wilson & Lu (Editors): Parallel Programming using C++. The MIT Press. 1996. ISBN 0-262-73118-5. • B. Stroustrup: Language-technical Aspects of Reuse. Proc. 4th International Conference on Software reuse, pp 11-19. April 1996. B. Stroustrup: A Brief Look at C++. IEEE AI Expert, Intelligent Systems and their Applications, pp 13-15. February 1996. • A. R. Koenig and B. Stroustrup: Foundations for Native C++ Styles. Software Practice and Experience. Vol 25, special issue S4. December 1995. • B. Stroustrup: A Perspective on ISO C++. The C++ Report. Vol 7/No 8, pp 22-28. October 1995. Also in "C++ Gems" (editor: Stan Lippman) SIGS Publications, 1996. ISBN 1-884842-37-2. • B. Stroustrup: Why C++ isn't just an Object-Oriented Programming Language. Addendum to OOPSLA'95 Proceedings. OOPS Messenger, vol 6 no 4, pp 1-13. October 1995. • B. Stroustrup: Making a vector fit for a Standard. The C++ Report. October 1994. Also in "C++ Gems" (editor: Stan Lippman) SIGS Publications, 1996. ISBN 1-884842-37-2. • B. Stroustrup: The Design and Evolution of C++. Addison Wesley, ISBN 0-201-54330-3. March 1994. • B. Stroustrup, A. Koenig, and B. Moo: The C++ Programming Language. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. Wiley. ISBN 0-471-54004-8. February 1994. • B. Stroustrup: The Simula Programming Language. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. Wiley. ISBN 0-471-54004-8. February 1994. • B. Stroustrup: On Learning C++. Martin Heller: Advanced Win32 Programming. Wiley. July 1993. • B. Stroustrup: Why Consider Language Extensions?. Proc. European C++ Users' Group Meeting, Munich. July 1993. Also, The C++ Report. Vol 5 no 7. • B. Stroustrup: Library Design Using C++. The C++ Report. Vol 5 no 5, pp 14-22. June 1993. Also in "C++ Gems" (editor: Stan Lippman) SIGS Publications, 1996. ISBN 1-884842-37-2. • B. Stroustrup: A History of C++: 1979-1991. Proc ACM History of Programming Languages conference (HOPL-2). ACM Sigplan Notices. Vol 28 No 3, pp 271-298. March 1993. Also, History of Programming languages (editors T.J.Begin and R.G.Gibson) Addison-Wesley, ISBN 1-201-89502-1. 1996. • B. Stroustrup: We're not in Kansas Anymore. The C++ Report ``Moving from C to C++'' supplement. SIGS Publications. August 1992. • B. Stroustrup: Tracing the roots of C++. Silver Anniversary Supplement. SIGS Publications. August 1992. • B. Stroustrup D. Lenkov: Run-Time Type Identification for C++ (Revised). Proc USENIX C++ Conference. August 1992. • B. Stroustrup, et.al.: How to Write a C++ Language Extension Proposal. The C++ Report, pp 40-47. May 1992 Also, ACM Sigplan Notices, Vol 27 No 6 June 1992 pp 64-71. • B. Stavtrup: Overloading of C++ Whitespace. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming. April 1, 1992. • B. Stroustrup: C++ 3.0, Standardisering, og andet godt. PC World (Danmark). March 1992 (in Danish). • B. Stroustrup and D. Lenkov: Run-Time Type Identification for C++. The C++ Report, Vol 4 No 3, pp 32-42. March/April 1992. • B. Stroustrup: The C++ Programming Language (2nd Edition). Addison Wesley, ISBN 0-201-53992-6. June 1991. • B. Stroustrup: What is Object-Oriented Programming? (1991 revised version). Proc. 1st European Software Festival. February, 1991. • B. Stroustrup: Sixteen Ways to Stack a Cat. The C++ Report. Oct 1990. (a somewhat odd paper provided by popular demand). • M. A. Ellis and B. Stroustrup: The Annotated C++ Reference Manual. Addison Wesley, ISBN 0-201-51459-1. May 1990. In the period from 1990 to 1998 the ARM, in the last bullet point above, constituted a /de facto/ standard, but it became increasingly incorrect in both details and some main aspects as the standardization process changed the language. E.g., the rule for destruction of temporaries was clarified and slightly changed in C++98, a detail. And e.g. namespaces, a main aspect, were introduced after the ARM. Cheers & hth., - Alf Notes: ¹ <url: http://www.stroustrup.com/papers.html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e2m56pFogtnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #44605 |
On 2016-08-30 19:24, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 8/29/2016 1:52 PM, Daniel wrote:
>> On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 1:06:54 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> "Unicode"
>>> http://xkcd.com/1726/
>>>
>>> "Watching the Unicode people try to govern the infinite chaos of
>>> human language with consistent technical standards is like watching
>>> highway engineers try to steer a river using traffic signs."
>>>
>>> As usual, Randall Munroe nails it.
>>>
>> Has he though? On this one?
>>
>> I think the Unicode people have vastly simplified many people's lives.
>>
>> Admittedly, C++ has badly screwed this up.
>>
>> Daniel
>
> Microsoft has a big hand in the screw up with their decision to go with
> wide characters.
The decision was pretty obvious at the time, when their wchar_t could
hold all of the existing code space. Who would know that even-wider
characters would appear later?
> But the Unicode consortium is getting wacky here
> lately with adding emoticons to Unicode.
>
> http://blog.unicode.org/2016/06/unicode-90-emoji-available-for-adoption.html
>
Yes, adding a Bacon character doesn't look totally PK today. And the
meaning if crossing-fingers is not locale neutral.
Bo Persson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e2m5ouFokguU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #44616 |
On 2016-08-30 21:30, Bo Persson wrote: > On 2016-08-30 19:24, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> On 8/29/2016 1:52 PM, Daniel wrote: >>> On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 1:06:54 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>> "Unicode" >>>> http://xkcd.com/1726/ >>>> >>>> "Watching the Unicode people try to govern the infinite chaos of >>>> human language with consistent technical standards is like watching >>>> highway engineers try to steer a river using traffic signs." >>>> >>>> As usual, Randall Munroe nails it. >>>> >>> Has he though? On this one? >>> >>> I think the Unicode people have vastly simplified many people's lives. >>> >>> Admittedly, C++ has badly screwed this up. >>> >>> Daniel >> >> Microsoft has a big hand in the screw up with their decision to go with >> wide characters. > > The decision was pretty obvious at the time, when their wchar_t could > hold all of the existing code space. Who would know that even-wider > characters would appear later? > > >> But the Unicode consortium is getting wacky here >> lately with adding emoticons to Unicode. >> >> http://blog.unicode.org/2016/06/unicode-90-emoji-available-for-adoption.html >> >> > > Yes, adding a Bacon character doesn't look totally PK today. And the > meaning if crossing-fingers is not locale neutral. > Sorry, lost in translation. PK = politically correct. > Bo Persson > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web