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


Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #87836 > unrolled thread

"Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel

Started byLynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>
First post2022-12-12 14:53 -0600
Last post2022-12-14 18:40 -0600
Articles 20 on this page of 74 — 14 participants

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


Contents

  "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 14:53 -0600
    Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-12 17:40 -0800
    Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> - 2022-12-13 08:55 +0100
      Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-13 15:06 +0000
    Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 08:37 +0000
      Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 14:15 -0600
        Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2022-12-13 17:03 -0500
          Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 19:35 -0600
            Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2022-12-13 21:13 -0500
            Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2022-12-14 04:40 -0500
          Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 09:39 +0000
            Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 12:34 +0000
              Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 16:33 +0000
            Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-14 05:56 -0800
              Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 16:35 +0000
                Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 19:21 +0100
                  Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-14 12:09 -0800
                    Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 15:53 -0600
                      Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-15 09:52 +0000
                        Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-15 15:04 +0000
                          Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-15 16:20 +0000
                            Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 20:09 +0100
                              Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-16 10:14 +0000
                                Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-16 13:38 +0100
                              Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-12-16 14:15 +0100
                                Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-16 14:20 +0100
                                  Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 12:36 -0800
                                    Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 17:09 -0800
                        Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 18:44 -0600
                          Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-16 10:24 +0000
                            Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-16 15:19 +0000
                              Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-16 15:27 +0000
                            Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 14:03 -0600
                              Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-17 10:18 +0000
                                Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 02:27 -0800
                                  Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-17 10:42 +0000
                                    Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 13:15 -0800
                                  Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-17 16:05 +0000
                                    Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 13:15 -0800
                                      Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-18 17:37 +0000
                                      Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-19 09:43 +0000
                                        Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-19 15:28 +0000
                                          Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-19 16:58 +0000
                                            Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:28 -0800
                                              Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:35 -0800
                                                Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-20 14:49 +0000
                                                  Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 17:51 -0600
                                              Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 10:14 +0000
                                                Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 20:32 -0800
                                  Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 19:20 -0600
                                    Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-19 09:46 +0000
                                      Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 18:28 -0600
                                        Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 10:11 +0000
                                          Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 17:52 -0600
                                Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 19:13 -0600
                    Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-15 09:47 +0000
                    Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2022-12-17 21:49 +0000
                  Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-15 09:37 +0000
                    Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 11:49 +0100
                      Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-15 16:18 +0000
                      Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 12:54 -0800
                        Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-15 21:54 -0800
                        Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 11:40 -0800
                          Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-24 18:19 -0800
                            Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-25 17:07 +0000
                              Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-25 10:55 -0800
            Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 12:54 -0600
              Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-15 09:41 +0000
        Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-13 20:06 -0800
          Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 20:17 -0800
            Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-14 05:37 -0800
    Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 13:57 -0800
      Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 18:20 -0600
      Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 18:40 -0600

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


#88035

FromMuttley@dastardlyhq.com
Date2022-12-19 09:43 +0000
Message-ID<tnpbo6$1map$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#87997
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:15:04 -0800
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/17/2022 8:05 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 12/17/2022 2:18 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:03:18 -0600
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/2022 4:24 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted to
>save
>>>>> fuel
>>>>>> they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight but
>that
>>>>>> wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board.
>>>>> ....
>>>>>
>>>>> Those single digit mpg days are way past for F-150s.  My 2019 F-150 4x4
>>>>> 3.5L dual turbo V6 with the 4 inch lift kit gets 16 - 17 mpg around
>>>>> town, 20 mpg at 70 mph, and 18 mpg at 80 mph (it is a brick after all).
>>>>
>>>> 20mpg in 2022? BFD. My 14 year old tired diesel can do 35mpg at that speed
>>>> (admittedly UK gallons so probably ~ 30-32 US). Modern cars can do much
>better.
>>>>
>>>> Though I suppose it begs the question of why americans feel the need to
>drive
>>>> around in absurdly large utility vehicles. Insecurity perhaps or maybe
>posing.
>>>> But thats an argument for another newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ever had to tow a big boat before?
>> 
>> Something that perhaps 15% of non-commercial pickup truck owners actually do.
>
>> 
>
>Towing a boat up and down to Lake Tahoe from Carson City, one needs a 
>vehicle than can do it.

Depends how big the boat is. A modern mini can tow 1.5 tons which will cover
a lot small boats + trailer. A lot of larger cars such as a 5 series can tow
2 tons. The only genuine reason for a pickup is if you need to carry a lot of 
loose stuff in the bed, and frankly if you do you're probably better off with a
van anyway which will also have a large towing capacity.

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


#88052

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2022-12-19 15:28 +0000
Message-ID<sq%nL.38673$t5W7.24477@fx13.iad>
In reply to#88035
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:15:04 -0800
>"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 12/17/2022 8:05 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 12/17/2022 2:18 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:03:18 -0600
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/16/2022 4:24 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted to
>>save
>>>>>> fuel
>>>>>>> they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight but
>>that
>>>>>>> wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board.
>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those single digit mpg days are way past for F-150s.  My 2019 F-150 4x4
>>>>>> 3.5L dual turbo V6 with the 4 inch lift kit gets 16 - 17 mpg around
>>>>>> town, 20 mpg at 70 mph, and 18 mpg at 80 mph (it is a brick after all).
>>>>>
>>>>> 20mpg in 2022? BFD. My 14 year old tired diesel can do 35mpg at that speed
>>>>> (admittedly UK gallons so probably ~ 30-32 US). Modern cars can do much
>>better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Though I suppose it begs the question of why americans feel the need to
>>drive
>>>>> around in absurdly large utility vehicles. Insecurity perhaps or maybe
>>posing.
>>>>> But thats an argument for another newsgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ever had to tow a big boat before?
>>> 
>>> Something that perhaps 15% of non-commercial pickup truck owners actually do.
>>
>>> 
>>
>>Towing a boat up and down to Lake Tahoe from Carson City, one needs a 
>>vehicle than can do it.
>
>Depends how big the boat is.

And the difference in elevation between the two points and the
grade of the highway connecting the two points.   Which in this
case, (Carson City to Lake Tahoe) is significant.

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


#88063

FromMuttley@dastardlyhq.com
Date2022-12-19 16:58 +0000
Message-ID<tnq57t$62m$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#88052
On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:28:24 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:15:04 -0800
>>>Towing a boat up and down to Lake Tahoe from Carson City, one needs a 
>>>vehicle than can do it.
>>
>>Depends how big the boat is.
>
>And the difference in elevation between the two points and the
>grade of the highway connecting the two points.   Which in this
>case, (Carson City to Lake Tahoe) is significant.

Yet in europe we have normal cars towing reasonably sized double axle
caravans. There are obviously SUVs doing it too but few people seems to need to
resort to driving a 2.5t pickup to do it and the pickups you do see are usually
work vehicles with company logos on the side. Oh and diesel for obvious
reasons which are probably beyond your average lifestyler.

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


#88088

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2022-12-19 19:28 -0800
Message-ID<tnra5m$gbuf$8@dont-email.me>
In reply to#88063
On 12/19/2022 8:58 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:28:24 GMT
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:15:04 -0800
>>>> Towing a boat up and down to Lake Tahoe from Carson City, one needs a
>>>> vehicle than can do it.
>>>
>>> Depends how big the boat is.
>>
>> And the difference in elevation between the two points and the
>> grade of the highway connecting the two points.   Which in this
>> case, (Carson City to Lake Tahoe) is significant.
> 
> Yet in europe we have normal cars towing reasonably sized double axle
> caravans. There are obviously SUVs doing it too but few people seems to need to
> resort to driving a 2.5t pickup to do it and the pickups you do see are usually
> work vehicles with company logos on the side. Oh and diesel for obvious
> reasons which are probably beyond your average lifestyler.
> 

Have you ever towed a boat going down a decent grade? You do not want 
the boat to be driving you, out of control. Fwiw, there was a big wreck 
at the bottom of highway 50 going into Carson City. Right by Costco. The 
big boat got out of control and the driver could not control it. I 
cannot remember if he had breaks on his trailer or not. Iirc, this is a 
report of the shit storm:

https://www.recordcourier.com/news/2021/nov/15/bail-remains-high-driver-fatal-carson-city-wreck/

An example of person that should not be towing anything!

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


#88089

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2022-12-19 19:35 -0800
Message-ID<tnraht$jg3a$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#88088
On 12/19/2022 7:28 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 12/19/2022 8:58 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:28:24 GMT
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:15:04 -0800
>>>>> Towing a boat up and down to Lake Tahoe from Carson City, one needs a
>>>>> vehicle than can do it.
>>>>
>>>> Depends how big the boat is.
>>>
>>> And the difference in elevation between the two points and the
>>> grade of the highway connecting the two points.   Which in this
>>> case, (Carson City to Lake Tahoe) is significant.
>>
>> Yet in europe we have normal cars towing reasonably sized double axle
>> caravans. There are obviously SUVs doing it too but few people seems 
>> to need to
>> resort to driving a 2.5t pickup to do it and the pickups you do see 
>> are usually
>> work vehicles with company logos on the side. Oh and diesel for obvious
>> reasons which are probably beyond your average lifestyler.
>>
> 
> Have you ever towed a boat going down a decent grade? You do not want 
> the boat to be driving you, out of control. Fwiw, there was a big wreck 
> at the bottom of highway 50 going into Carson City. Right by Costco. The 
> big boat got out of control and the driver could not control it. I 
> cannot remember if he had breaks on his trailer or not. Iirc, this is a 
> report of the shit storm:
> 
> https://www.recordcourier.com/news/2021/nov/15/bail-remains-high-driver-fatal-carson-city-wreck/
> 
> An example of person that should not be towing anything!

I cannot remember the model of the boat, a Cobalt perhaps?

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


#88136

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2022-12-20 14:49 +0000
Message-ID<6YjoL.40322$t5W7.30258@fx13.iad>
In reply to#88089
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>On 12/19/2022 7:28 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 12/19/2022 8:58 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:28:24 GMT
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:15:04 -0800
>>>>>> Towing a boat up and down to Lake Tahoe from Carson City, one needs a
>>>>>> vehicle than can do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends how big the boat is.
>>>>
>>>> And the difference in elevation between the two points and the
>>>> grade of the highway connecting the two points.   Which in this
>>>> case, (Carson City to Lake Tahoe) is significant.
>>>
>>> Yet in europe we have normal cars towing reasonably sized double axle
>>> caravans. There are obviously SUVs doing it too but few people seems 
>>> to need to
>>> resort to driving a 2.5t pickup to do it and the pickups you do see 
>>> are usually
>>> work vehicles with company logos on the side. Oh and diesel for obvious
>>> reasons which are probably beyond your average lifestyler.
>>>
>> 
>> Have you ever towed a boat going down a decent grade? You do not want 
>> the boat to be driving you, out of control. Fwiw, there was a big wreck 
>> at the bottom of highway 50 going into Carson City. Right by Costco. The 
>> big boat got out of control and the driver could not control it. I 
>> cannot remember if he had breaks on his trailer or not. Iirc, this is a 
>> report of the shit storm:
>> 
>> https://www.recordcourier.com/news/2021/nov/15/bail-remains-high-driver-fatal-carson-city-wreck/
>> 
>> An example of person that should not be towing anything!
>
>I cannot remember the model of the boat, a Cobalt perhaps?

The article indicated it was a 37,000 pound yacht.   8 tons beyond the
towing capacity of the F350.  Driver got 3 to 10.

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


#88165

FromLynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>
Date2022-12-20 17:51 -0600
Message-ID<tnthp4$qg9c$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#88136
On 12/20/2022 8:49 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 12/19/2022 7:28 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2022 8:58 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:28:24 GMT
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:15:04 -0800
>>>>>>> Towing a boat up and down to Lake Tahoe from Carson City, one needs a
>>>>>>> vehicle than can do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends how big the boat is.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the difference in elevation between the two points and the
>>>>> grade of the highway connecting the two points.   Which in this
>>>>> case, (Carson City to Lake Tahoe) is significant.
>>>>
>>>> Yet in europe we have normal cars towing reasonably sized double axle
>>>> caravans. There are obviously SUVs doing it too but few people seems
>>>> to need to
>>>> resort to driving a 2.5t pickup to do it and the pickups you do see
>>>> are usually
>>>> work vehicles with company logos on the side. Oh and diesel for obvious
>>>> reasons which are probably beyond your average lifestyler.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Have you ever towed a boat going down a decent grade? You do not want
>>> the boat to be driving you, out of control. Fwiw, there was a big wreck
>>> at the bottom of highway 50 going into Carson City. Right by Costco. The
>>> big boat got out of control and the driver could not control it. I
>>> cannot remember if he had breaks on his trailer or not. Iirc, this is a
>>> report of the shit storm:
>>>
>>> https://www.recordcourier.com/news/2021/nov/15/bail-remains-high-driver-fatal-carson-city-wreck/
>>>
>>> An example of person that should not be towing anything!
>>
>> I cannot remember the model of the boat, a Cobalt perhaps?
> 
> The article indicated it was a 37,000 pound yacht.   8 tons beyond the
> towing capacity of the F350.  Driver got 3 to 10.

Wow, I used to pull a 28,000 lb gooseneck with a C30 dually and then a 
F350 dually.  The trailer was an incredible handful and the brakes were 
definitely a serious concern.  We were considering buying a Class 8 
tractor when I left the group.

Lynn

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


#88113

FromMuttley@dastardlyhq.com
Date2022-12-20 10:14 +0000
Message-ID<tns1u4$dia$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#88088
On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 19:28:53 -0800
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/19/2022 8:58 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:28:24 GMT
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:15:04 -0800
>>>>> Towing a boat up and down to Lake Tahoe from Carson City, one needs a
>>>>> vehicle than can do it.
>>>>
>>>> Depends how big the boat is.
>>>
>>> And the difference in elevation between the two points and the
>>> grade of the highway connecting the two points.   Which in this
>>> case, (Carson City to Lake Tahoe) is significant.
>> 
>> Yet in europe we have normal cars towing reasonably sized double axle
>> caravans. There are obviously SUVs doing it too but few people seems to need
>to
>> resort to driving a 2.5t pickup to do it and the pickups you do see are
>usually
>> work vehicles with company logos on the side. Oh and diesel for obvious
>> reasons which are probably beyond your average lifestyler.
>> 
>
>Have you ever towed a boat going down a decent grade? You do not want 
>the boat to be driving you, out of control. Fwiw, there was a big wreck 
>at the bottom of highway 50 going into Carson City. Right by Costco. The 
>big boat got out of control and the driver could not control it. I 
>cannot remember if he had breaks on his trailer or not. Iirc, this is a 
>report of the shit storm:

No, but I have a Class 1 HGV license which means I can drive trucks up to 44
tons in the UK and I wouldn't let someone with only a car license anywhere near
those sorts of loads. But the safety rules are ... different ... in the US.

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


#88247

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2022-12-23 20:32 -0800
Message-ID<to5vdg$20u34$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#88113
On 12/20/2022 2:14 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 19:28:53 -0800
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/19/2022 8:58 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:28:24 GMT
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:15:04 -0800
>>>>>> Towing a boat up and down to Lake Tahoe from Carson City, one needs a
>>>>>> vehicle than can do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends how big the boat is.
>>>>
>>>> And the difference in elevation between the two points and the
>>>> grade of the highway connecting the two points.   Which in this
>>>> case, (Carson City to Lake Tahoe) is significant.
>>>
>>> Yet in europe we have normal cars towing reasonably sized double axle
>>> caravans. There are obviously SUVs doing it too but few people seems to need
>> to
>>> resort to driving a 2.5t pickup to do it and the pickups you do see are
>> usually
>>> work vehicles with company logos on the side. Oh and diesel for obvious
>>> reasons which are probably beyond your average lifestyler.
>>>
>>
>> Have you ever towed a boat going down a decent grade? You do not want
>> the boat to be driving you, out of control. Fwiw, there was a big wreck
>> at the bottom of highway 50 going into Carson City. Right by Costco. The
>> big boat got out of control and the driver could not control it. I
>> cannot remember if he had breaks on his trailer or not. Iirc, this is a
>> report of the shit storm:
> 
> No, but I have a Class 1 HGV license which means I can drive trucks up to 44
> tons in the UK and I wouldn't let someone with only a car license anywhere near
> those sorts of loads. But the safety rules are ... different ... in the US.
> 

Well, shit happens! Argh!

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


#88003

FromLynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>
Date2022-12-17 19:20 -0600
Message-ID<tnlpsb$kkh$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#87988
On 12/17/2022 4:27 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 2:18 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:03:18 -0600
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 4:24 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted 
>>>> to save
>>> fuel
>>>> they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight 
>>>> but that
>>>> wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board.
>>> ....
>>>
>>> Those single digit mpg days are way past for F-150s.  My 2019 F-150 4x4
>>> 3.5L dual turbo V6 with the 4 inch lift kit gets 16 - 17 mpg around
>>> town, 20 mpg at 70 mph, and 18 mpg at 80 mph (it is a brick after all).
>>
>> 20mpg in 2022? BFD. My 14 year old tired diesel can do 35mpg at that 
>> speed
>> (admittedly UK gallons so probably ~ 30-32 US). Modern cars can do 
>> much better.
>>
>> Though I suppose it begs the question of why americans feel the need 
>> to drive
>> around in absurdly large utility vehicles. Insecurity perhaps or maybe 
>> posing.
>> But thats an argument for another newsgroup.
>>
> 
> Ever had to tow a big boat before?

I tow a 5,000 lb 35 foot boom lift two or three times a year.  I also 
manage to get myself in a foot or two of mud and water occasionally. 
Dadgum feral hogs.

Lynn

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


#88036

FromMuttley@dastardlyhq.com
Date2022-12-19 09:46 +0000
Message-ID<tnpbss$1ooc$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#88003
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 19:20:11 -0600
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/17/2022 4:27 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 12/17/2022 2:18 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:03:18 -0600
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2022 4:24 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted 
>>>>> to save
>>>> fuel
>>>>> they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight 
>>>>> but that
>>>>> wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board.
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> Those single digit mpg days are way past for F-150s.  My 2019 F-150 4x4
>>>> 3.5L dual turbo V6 with the 4 inch lift kit gets 16 - 17 mpg around
>>>> town, 20 mpg at 70 mph, and 18 mpg at 80 mph (it is a brick after all).
>>>
>>> 20mpg in 2022? BFD. My 14 year old tired diesel can do 35mpg at that 
>>> speed
>>> (admittedly UK gallons so probably ~ 30-32 US). Modern cars can do 
>>> much better.
>>>
>>> Though I suppose it begs the question of why americans feel the need 
>>> to drive
>>> around in absurdly large utility vehicles. Insecurity perhaps or maybe 
>>> posing.
>>> But thats an argument for another newsgroup.
>>>
>> 
>> Ever had to tow a big boat before?
>
>I tow a 5,000 lb 35 foot boom lift two or three times a year.  I also 

A Ford Transit can pull up to 3.5 tons which is 7700lbs.

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


#88082

FromLynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>
Date2022-12-19 18:28 -0600
Message-ID<tnqvir$flqk$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#88036
On 12/19/2022 3:46 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 19:20:11 -0600
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/17/2022 4:27 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2022 2:18 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:03:18 -0600
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/2022 4:24 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted
>>>>>> to save
>>>>> fuel
>>>>>> they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight
>>>>>> but that
>>>>>> wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board.
>>>>> ....
>>>>>
>>>>> Those single digit mpg days are way past for F-150s.  My 2019 F-150 4x4
>>>>> 3.5L dual turbo V6 with the 4 inch lift kit gets 16 - 17 mpg around
>>>>> town, 20 mpg at 70 mph, and 18 mpg at 80 mph (it is a brick after all).
>>>>
>>>> 20mpg in 2022? BFD. My 14 year old tired diesel can do 35mpg at that
>>>> speed
>>>> (admittedly UK gallons so probably ~ 30-32 US). Modern cars can do
>>>> much better.
>>>>
>>>> Though I suppose it begs the question of why americans feel the need
>>>> to drive
>>>> around in absurdly large utility vehicles. Insecurity perhaps or maybe
>>>> posing.
>>>> But thats an argument for another newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ever had to tow a big boat before?
>>
>> I tow a 5,000 lb 35 foot boom lift two or three times a year.  I also
> 
> A Ford Transit can pull up to 3.5 tons which is 7700lbs.

My F-150 can tow up to 13,000 lbs.  And has a 38 USA gallon tank for the 
resulting 8 mpg.

Lynn

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


#88112

FromMuttley@dastardlyhq.com
Date2022-12-20 10:11 +0000
Message-ID<tns1oo$al8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#88082
On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 18:28:10 -0600
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/19/2022 3:46 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> A Ford Transit can pull up to 3.5 tons which is 7700lbs.
>
>My F-150 can tow up to 13,000 lbs.  And has a 38 USA gallon tank for the 
>resulting 8 mpg.

Another thing in which europe and the USA differ. You can't tow a 6 ton load
using a 2.5 ton vehicle in Europe for obvious control reasons no matter what 
engine its got but then you guys also allow geriatrics with only a car license 
to drive 10 ton converted buses (also known as RVs) and towing a car to boot!

I guess in the US safety comes a poor 2nd place to lifestyle.

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


#88166

FromLynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>
Date2022-12-20 17:52 -0600
Message-ID<tnthsi$qg9c$5@dont-email.me>
In reply to#88112
On 12/20/2022 4:11 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 18:28:10 -0600
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/19/2022 3:46 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> A Ford Transit can pull up to 3.5 tons which is 7700lbs.
>>
>> My F-150 can tow up to 13,000 lbs.  And has a 38 USA gallon tank for the
>> resulting 8 mpg.
> 
> Another thing in which europe and the USA differ. You can't tow a 6 ton load
> using a 2.5 ton vehicle in Europe for obvious control reasons no matter what
> engine its got but then you guys also allow geriatrics with only a car license
> to drive 10 ton converted buses (also known as RVs) and towing a car to boot!
> 
> I guess in the US safety comes a poor 2nd place to lifestyle.

I've seen those geriatrics towing a boat AND a car behind an RV.  The 
whole train is about 60 to 70 feet long.

Lynn

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


#88002

FromLynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>
Date2022-12-17 19:13 -0600
Message-ID<tnlpg0$eme$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#87987
On 12/17/2022 4:18 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:03:18 -0600
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 4:24 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted to save
>> fuel
>>> they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight but that
>>> wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board.
>> ....
>>
>> Those single digit mpg days are way past for F-150s.  My 2019 F-150 4x4
>> 3.5L dual turbo V6 with the 4 inch lift kit gets 16 - 17 mpg around
>> town, 20 mpg at 70 mph, and 18 mpg at 80 mph (it is a brick after all).
> 
> 20mpg in 2022? BFD. My 14 year old tired diesel can do 35mpg at that speed
> (admittedly UK gallons so probably ~ 30-32 US). Modern cars can do much better.
> 
> Though I suppose it begs the question of why americans feel the need to drive
> around in absurdly large utility vehicles. Insecurity perhaps or maybe posing.
> But thats an argument for another newsgroup.

Merika !

Lynn

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


#87950

FromMuttley@dastardlyhq.com
Date2022-12-15 09:47 +0000
Message-ID<tneqfu$14kg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#87933
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 12:09:14 -0800 (PST)
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 8:22:12 PM UTC+2, David Brown wrote:
>> On 14/12/2022 17:35, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: 
>> > On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 05:56:36 -0800 (PST) 
>> > Michael S <already...@yahoo.com> wrote: 
>> >> On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 11:40:11 AM UTC+2,
>Mut...@dastardlyhq.com 
>> >> wrote: 
>> >>> And on MacOS there's Swift which is supposed to be a better Objective C. 
>
>> >>> Frankly it couldn't be much worse. Why Apple don't just use modern C++
>and 
>> >>> get all the benefits not to mention experienced devs on board is anyones 
>
>> >> guess. 
>> >> 
>> >> May be, because modern C++ is not particularly good language for 99% of 
>> >> programming tasks? 
>> > 
>> > I think you're in the wrong newsgroup. Python groups are that way ----> 
>> >
>> Maybe he thinks no one language is ideal for more than a few percent of 
>> programming tasks? Maybe he thinks C++ is not good for 99% of 
>> programming tasks, but the tasks /he/ does are in the 1%? 
>
>Actually, I think that C++ is either good or not bad for far more than 1%,
>may be, for above 5% of programming tasks. But in the post above I wrote
>specifically *modern* C++. My opinion about *modern* C++ and programming
>practices that accompany it is not particularly favorable.

Just because people such as Bonita get carried away with obscure unintelligable
meta programming doesn't mean modern C++ is poor. It makes something things
much simpler and cleaner than C++98.

>May be, even when I learn a new language, like C# or Go, but do not use
>it day in day out, I forget what I learned too quickly?

Applies to everything in life. Use it or lose it. I have the same problem
with Python which I use intermittently and always end up googling how to do
something basic which I should remember but usually don't.

>> done in C would be better done in other languages, and that most of the 
>> people who program in C would be better off in other languages - but I 
>> still enjoy C and write a lot of code in C and frequent comp.lang.c.
>
>C is better than its reputation.

Its still in active use after half a century so it must be doing something 
right.

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


#88001

FromJorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>
Date2022-12-17 21:49 +0000
Message-ID<slrntpseb8.h7h.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid>
In reply to#87933
On Wed, 2022-12-14, Michael S wrote:
...
> Actually, I think that C++ is either good or not bad for far more than 1%,
> may be, for above 5% of programming tasks. But in the post above I wrote
> specifically *modern* C++. My opinion about *modern* C++ and programming
> practices that accompany it is not particularly favorable.

What does "modern C++" mean to you?

There was a time, up until C++98 became established, when everyone
wrote their own container libraries, used Smalltalk-style inheritance
as much as possible, chased memory leaks and didn't get much actual
work done.  To me "modern C++" is anything after that.

/Jorgen

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

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


#87948

FromMuttley@dastardlyhq.com
Date2022-12-15 09:37 +0000
Message-ID<tnepss$rnj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#87927
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 19:21:57 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 14/12/2022 17:35, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>people who program in C would be better off in other languages - but I 
>still enjoy C and write a lot of code in C and frequent comp.lang.c.

C is good for low level where the C++ runtime couldn't be supported and
for smallish system programs/utilities that don't require complex data 
structures. As soon as it looks like you need STL type functionality or black
boxing you're better off with C++. IMO, YMMV.

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


#87954

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2022-12-15 11:49 +0100
Message-ID<tneu2t$32pff$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#87948
On 15/12/2022 10:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 19:21:57 +0100
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 14/12/2022 17:35, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> people who program in C would be better off in other languages - but I
>> still enjoy C and write a lot of code in C and frequent comp.lang.c.
> 
> C is good for low level where the C++ runtime couldn't be supported and
> for smallish system programs/utilities that don't require complex data
> structures. As soon as it looks like you need STL type functionality or black
> boxing you're better off with C++. IMO, YMMV.
> 

Oh, I am quite happy to agree that C has its place, and is the best 
choice of language for a number of things.  Even when something like 
C++, D, Rust, whatever, would be as efficient, the simplicity of C and 
the convenience in connecting to other languages can make it the best 
choice.

But often it is used even when it is /not/ the best choice.  You see 
people asking questions like "how do I write a parser for this kind of 
text file in C?" - the answer is, "you don't".  You use a language 
better suited for the task.  Even in the old days when C was the only 
sane choice for something like a parser, you didn't write the code in C 
- you used tools that generated the C for you.

There is nothing wrong with using C for tasks for which C is the best 
choice - I only disapprove of using it for tasks where there are much 
better alternatives.

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


#87959

FromMuttley@dastardlyhq.com
Date2022-12-15 16:18 +0000
Message-ID<tnfhc0$2e6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#87954
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 11:49:01 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 15/12/2022 10:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 19:21:57 +0100
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 14/12/2022 17:35, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> people who program in C would be better off in other languages - but I
>>> still enjoy C and write a lot of code in C and frequent comp.lang.c.
>> 
>> C is good for low level where the C++ runtime couldn't be supported and
>> for smallish system programs/utilities that don't require complex data
>> structures. As soon as it looks like you need STL type functionality or black
>
>> boxing you're better off with C++. IMO, YMMV.
>> 
>
>Oh, I am quite happy to agree that C has its place, and is the best 
>choice of language for a number of things.  Even when something like 
>C++, D, Rust, whatever, would be as efficient, the simplicity of C and 
>the convenience in connecting to other languages can make it the best 
>choice.
>
>But often it is used even when it is /not/ the best choice.  You see 
>people asking questions like "how do I write a parser for this kind of 
>text file in C?" - the answer is, "you don't".  You use a language 
>better suited for the task.  Even in the old days when C was the only 

I disagree with you there. C's pointer abilities make it a first class
language in which to write a text parser. Doing the equivalent using array
indexing along with substr() and find() type functionality would be inefficient
and long winded.

>sane choice for something like a parser, you didn't write the code in C 
>- you used tools that generated the C for you.

Lexx and yacc? Hmm, they were ok but limited and the code they generated could
often be described as a dogs dinner.

>There is nothing wrong with using C for tasks for which C is the best 
>choice - I only disapprove of using it for tasks where there are much 
>better alternatives.

People use what they know. Python might be the best language for quick and
dirty scripts but for a dev who only knows C it would be far quicker for them
to write it in C than spend 2 weeks learning python first.

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


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

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


csiph-web