Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #87836 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-12-12 14:53 -0600 |
| Last post | 2022-12-14 18:40 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 74 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
"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 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-12 14:53 -0600 |
| Subject | "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel |
| Message-ID | <tn84c9$29sga$6@dont-email.me> |
"Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5348333/Why-ISO-Cplusplus-Is-Not-Enough-for-Heterogeneous That is a lot of custom code. One would hope for more compiler automation. Lynn
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-12 17:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9c8d0753-8bc2-40f9-8d35-cc71cef1dca9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87836 |
On Monday, 12 December 2022 at 22:53:46 UTC+2, Lynn McGuire wrote: > "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel > > https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5348333/Why-ISO-Cplusplus-Is-Not-Enough-for-Heterogeneous > > That is a lot of custom code. One would hope for more compiler automation. They just want a programming language where all can be burdened upon programmer: 1) figure out what mixture of resources is available in system 2) split the algorithm into components that map well to available resources 3) spread the tasks to the resources 4) schedule it well so bottle-necks are minimal 5) take into account and adapt to different usage patterns of end user 6) be responsible for portability to next gen idiotic system they release year later 7) maintain the mess They either implement compilers and standard libraries that take the heterogenous nature of their garbage architecture into account (and C++ language all that is needed for that) or software just runs weakly on it ... and system of competitor will be bought.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-13 08:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tn9b69$2cjm3$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #87836 |
Am 12.12.22 um 21:53 schrieb Lynn McGuire: > "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel The Problem is Intel Alder Lake not C++. The covered their problems in chip production by building CPUs that have good single core performance and many cores with as little as possible Silicon. Both parameters look pretty in Datasheets, but they are mutually exclusive. This may be just fine for many _multitasking_ requirements. But it is definitely no good choice for number crunching or other parallel computing. I would not spend much time on building a computer language around this kind of CPU. Heterogeneous hardware should be up to the OS scheduler, not a _multi-threading_ applications problem. Marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-13 15:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tx0mL.18268$9sn9.13642@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #87853 |
Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> writes: >Am 12.12.22 um 21:53 schrieb Lynn McGuire: >> "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel > >The Problem is Intel Alder Lake not C++. > >The covered their problems in chip production by building CPUs that have >good single core performance and many cores with as little as possible >Silicon. Both parameters look pretty in Datasheets, but they are >mutually exclusive. >This may be just fine for many _multitasking_ requirements. But it is >definitely no good choice for number crunching or other parallel computing. > >I would not spend much time on building a computer language around this >kind of CPU. Heterogeneous hardware should be up to the OS scheduler, >not a _multi-threading_ applications problem. What "kind of CPU"? The entire article wasn't about enhancing or changing the C++ language. It's just a set of library functions and header files that allow interacting with a GPU using OpenCL. Basically a C++ wrapper on OpenCL/Cuda.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-13 08:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tn9dkr$1cqg$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87836 |
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: > "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel > > https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5348333/Why-ISO-Cplusplus-Is-Not-Enough-for-Heterogeneous > > That is a lot of custom code. One would hope for more compiler automation. Time to create yet another new programming language that's a "better C++"! And throw it in the same heap as the myriads of other such languages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-13 14:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <tnamg9$2j8e0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87857 |
On 12/13/2022 2:37 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >> "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel >> >> https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5348333/Why-ISO-Cplusplus-Is-Not-Enough-for-Heterogeneous >> >> That is a lot of custom code. One would hope for more compiler automation. > > Time to create yet another new programming language that's a "better C++"! > > And throw it in the same heap as the myriads of other such languages. Isn't that new programming language suppose to be Go and Rust ? Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-13 17:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tnasr2$16e4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87876 |
On 12/13/22 15:15, Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 12/13/2022 2:37 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>> "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel >>> >>> https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5348333/Why-ISO-Cplusplus-Is-Not-Enough-for-Heterogeneous >>> >>> That is a lot of custom code. One would hope for more compiler >>> automation. >> >> Time to create yet another new programming language that's a "better >> C++"! >> >> And throw it in the same heap as the myriads of other such languages. > > Isn't that new programming language suppose to be Go and Rust ? > > Lynn > And D, among others. I wish D had caught on more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-13 19:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <tnb998$2ke2t$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87879 |
On 12/13/2022 4:03 PM, d thiebaud wrote:
> On 12/13/22 15:15, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 12/13/2022 2:37 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel
>>>>
>>>> https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5348333/Why-ISO-Cplusplus-Is-Not-Enough-for-Heterogeneous
>>>>
>>>> That is a lot of custom code. One would hope for more compiler
>>>> automation.
>>>
>>> Time to create yet another new programming language that's a "better
>>> C++"!
>>>
>>> And throw it in the same heap as the myriads of other such languages.
>>
>> Isn't that new programming language suppose to be Go and Rust ?
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>
> And D, among others. I wish D had caught on more.
Looks like D is still hanging around.
https://dlang.org/
Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-13 21:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tnbbg4$5vj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87880 |
On 12/13/22 20:35, Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 12/13/2022 4:03 PM, d thiebaud wrote:<snip> >> >> And D, among others. I wish D had caught on more. > > Looks like D is still hanging around. > https://dlang.org/ > > Lynn > Yes, but it hasn't had the success I hoped for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 04:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tnc5m7$v2n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87880 |
On 12/13/22 20:35, Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 12/13/2022 4:03 PM, d thiebaud wrote: >> On 12/13/22 15:15, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>> On 12/13/2022 2:37 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel >>>>> >>>>> https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5348333/Why-ISO-Cplusplus-Is-Not-Enough-for-Heterogeneous >>>>> >>>>> That is a lot of custom code. One would hope for more compiler >>>>> automation. >>>> >>>> Time to create yet another new programming language that's a "better >>>> C++"! >>>> >>>> And throw it in the same heap as the myriads of other such languages. >>> >>> Isn't that new programming language suppose to be Go and Rust ? >>> >>> Lynn >>> >> >> And D, among others. I wish D had caught on more. > > Looks like D is still hanging around. > https://dlang.org/ > > Lynn >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 09:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnc5la$1005$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87879 |
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 17:03:13 -0500 d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> wrote: >On 12/13/22 15:15, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> On 12/13/2022 2:37 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel >>>> >>>> >https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5348333/Why-ISO-Cplusplus-Is-Not-Enough-fo >r-Heterogeneous >>>> >>>> That is a lot of custom code. One would hope for more compiler >>>> automation. >>> >>> Time to create yet another new programming language that's a "better >>> C++"! >>> >>> And throw it in the same heap as the myriads of other such languages. >> >> Isn't that new programming language suppose to be Go and Rust ? >> >> Lynn >> > >And D, among others. I wish D had caught on more. Don't forget Dart. Another emanation from Google which no doubt they'll get bored with in a few years and drop like most of their projects. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 12:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tncfth$1nvu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87892 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > And on MacOS there's Swift which is supposed to be a better Objective C. > Frankly it couldn't be much worse. Why Apple don't just use modern C++ and > get all the benefits not to mention experienced devs on board is anyones guess. Having programmed quite a lot not only in Objective-C, but in Objective-C++, I kind of like the language. Its C, an object-oriented extension of C, and C++, all piled up in one huge heap, which in theory sounds like it would be a huge mess... but perhaps a bit surprisingly it worked quite well, IMO. Objective-C adds to the language several things that C++ simply cannot add (such as runtime introspection), and C++ adds things that Objective-C does not add (such as RAII and templates), and combined they work surprisingly well, even though it might sound like a huge mess. But I suppose the people at Apple finally decided that it's too big of a mess, so they decided to create their own "simpler and cleaner" language, which is completely incompatible with C++. And that's the point at which I completely lost interest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 16:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnctsd$ffo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87902 |
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 12:34:59 -0000 (UTC) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >Muttley@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. > >Having programmed quite a lot not only in Objective-C, but in Objective-C++, >I kind of like the language. > >Its C, an object-oriented extension of C, and C++, all piled up in one >huge heap, which in theory sounds like it would be a huge mess... but >perhaps a bit surprisingly it worked quite well, IMO. > >Objective-C adds to the language several things that C++ simply cannot >add (such as runtime introspection), and C++ adds things that Objective-C If you think having generic objects being thrown around similar to Javas Object type is a good idea instead of knowing what they are at compile time then I suppose introspection makes sense. Personally I think its a solution for a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 05:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a2ac3973-a9f1-42ff-974b-5c9e7a898773n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87892 |
On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 11:40:11 AM UTC+2, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 17:03:13 -0500 > d thiebaud <thieba...@aol.com> wrote: > >On 12/13/22 15:15, Lynn McGuire wrote: > >> On 12/13/2022 2:37 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > >>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel > >>>> > >>>> > >https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5348333/Why-ISO-Cplusplus-Is-Not-Enough-fo > >r-Heterogeneous > >>>> > >>>> That is a lot of custom code. One would hope for more compiler > >>>> automation. > >>> > >>> Time to create yet another new programming language that's a "better > >>> C++"! > >>> > >>> And throw it in the same heap as the myriads of other such languages. > >> > >> Isn't that new programming language suppose to be Go and Rust ? > >> > >> Lynn > >> > > > >And D, among others. I wish D had caught on more. > Don't forget Dart. Another emanation from Google which no doubt they'll get > bored with in a few years and drop like most of their projects. > My impression from reading Wikipedia article is that Google as firm got bored with Dart around 2014-2015. As a consequence, all senior devs left a project and most of them left Google as well. Despite that it seems that Google still willing to keep development financed, if barely. I could be wrong about it. > 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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 16:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnctvr$gt4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87908 |
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 05:56:36 -0800 (PST) Michael S <already5chosen@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 ---->
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 19:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnd485$2rgf5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87914 |
On 14/12/2022 17:35, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 05:56:36 -0800 (PST) > Michael S <already5chosen@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%? Maybe he has no choice but to use it despite it not being ideal? Maybe he likes C++ and uses it because he likes it, even if it is not good for the task in hand? Maybe he thinks C++ is not particularly good, yet better than all the rest? There's lots of reasons to be in a C++ newsgroup and to use C++ even if you think it is not a great language. I think most of the programming 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 12:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <93133abe-2018-42cf-bd3c-e0c5e457e182n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87927 |
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. It does not mean that I don't like every single bit that was added to the language in C++11 and later. I do find several new libraries quite useful even if for some of them I'd personally prefer the same functionality presented in less modern AP style. Even 'auto' discussed is other thread, is not universally harmful, even outside of templates. > Maybe he has > no choice but to use it despite it not being ideal? Maybe he likes C++ > and uses it because he likes it, even if it is not good for the task in > hand? Maybe he thinks C++ is not particularly good, yet better than all > the rest? May be, use C++ because I am conservative? 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? May be, it's my age telling? > > There's lots of reasons to be in a C++ newsgroup and to use C++ even if > you think it is not a great language. I think most of the programming > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 15:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <tndgkj$2shvh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87933 |
On 12/14/2022 2:09 PM, Michael S 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. > It does not mean that I don't like every single bit that was added to the language > in C++11 and later. I do find several new libraries quite useful even if for > some of them I'd personally prefer the same functionality presented in less > modern AP style. > Even 'auto' discussed is other thread, is not universally harmful, even outside > of templates. > >> Maybe he has >> no choice but to use it despite it not being ideal? Maybe he likes C++ >> and uses it because he likes it, even if it is not good for the task in >> hand? Maybe he thinks C++ is not particularly good, yet better than all >> the rest? > > May be, use C++ because I am conservative? > 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? > May be, it's my age telling? > >> >> There's lots of reasons to be in a C++ newsgroup and to use C++ even if >> you think it is not a great language. I think most of the programming >> 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. Every time you start your vehicle engine, millions of lines of C code is controlling it. Toyota and Ford are reputedly at 30 million lines of code in their EMS (engine management system). Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-15 09:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tneqpg$18mm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87937 |
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:53:24 -0600 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >On 12/14/2022 2:09 PM, Michael S wrote: >> C is better than its reputation. > >Every time you start your vehicle engine, millions of lines of C code is >controlling it. Toyota and Ford are reputedly at 30 million lines of >code in their EMS (engine management system). Which is way too much just to control spark and fuel injection times. That should be a thousand lines at most with maybe the equivalent for an auto gearbox controller as most of the important stuff would be dense mathematics anyway. When I worked in defense the code to control actuators was never more than a few thousand lines which given you had to write it to high SIL spec was about as much as humanly possible to vet properly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-15 15:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iIGmL.8932$5S78.4677@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #87951 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:53:24 -0600 >Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>On 12/14/2022 2:09 PM, Michael S wrote: >>> C is better than its reputation. >> >>Every time you start your vehicle engine, millions of lines of C code is >>controlling it. Toyota and Ford are reputedly at 30 million lines of >>code in their EMS (engine management system). > >Which is way too much just to control spark and fuel injection times. That >should be a thousand lines at most with maybe the equivalent for an auto >gearbox controller as most of the important stuff would be dense mathematics >anyway. When I worked in defense the code to control actuators was never >more than a few thousand lines which given you had to write it to high SIL spec >was about as much as humanly possible to vet properly. > Like you, I find the 30 million lines in the EMS to be very unlikely. Now if you add in the entertainment systems and other dashboard display and control systems, it might get a bit closer. Tesla's and other vehicles with partial or full self-driving capabilities are a different story, with incredibly complicated and large SoC's with several different grades of processor, safety islands and redundancy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web