Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Design decisions |
| Date | 2012-06-23 10:21 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <a4k9f8FglmU2@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <js1968$26c$1@speranza.aioe.org> <87sjdn8gm0.fsf@gmail.com> <js26e1$ct5$1@speranza.aioe.org> <a4k3q3FglkU3@mid.individual.net> <js2pp5$t7c$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
On 06/23/12 09:58 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 22/06/12 22:44, Ian Collins a écrit :
>> On 06/23/12 04:27 AM, jacob navia wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe, depends on what you have in mind. In any case the unwinding of
>>> the stack done by C++ is just that: stack unwinding and you can
>>> simulate that with a generic stack without any big problems. Of course
>>> it is a bit ofmore work for you but you do NOT pay for an
>>> enormous complexity increase!
>>
>> The complexity in both case will be equal. In your case the complexity
>> has to be managed by the manually programmer, in the C++ case it is
>> managed automatically by the compiler.
>
> Sure, but that "aautomatic" managemengt by an incredibly complex
> compiler has a price in difficulty of learning, understanding and using
> all that machinery.
If you find
struct ManageSomething
{
Something thing;
ManageSomething( Something s ) : thing(s) {}
~ManageSomething() { release( thing ); }
};
difficult to understand, I'd be worried.
I guess at some time in the past, our distant ancestors found wheels
complex, but they sure beat pushing things along the ground. Developing
technical solutions to repeating problems is what we do.
>> The complexity becomes really hard to manage manually when the jump
>> target is several layers up the call stack.
>>
>
> No, since it is conceptually simple: a stack. For each pointer that you
> need to free/release whatever you add an opcode and a pointer. You push
> that into the stack. It is very easy.
Easy, tedious, repetitive and error prone. Isn't the normal
programmer's reaction to a tedious, repetitive and error prone problem
automation?
--
Ian Collins
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-21 22:19 +0200
Re: Design decisions Andrew Cooper <amc96@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-06-21 21:43 +0100
Re: Design decisions "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-21 22:02 +0100
Re: Design decisions Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 23:23 +0100
Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-22 09:12 +0200
Re: Design decisions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 19:44 +1200
Re: Design decisions "Joe." <antelope3@news.net> - 2012-06-25 00:32 -0600
Re: Design decisions gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 01:00 -0700
Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-22 10:08 +0200
Re: Design decisions Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 17:18 +0100
Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-22 18:27 +0200
Re: Design decisions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-23 08:44 +1200
Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-22 23:58 +0200
Re: Design decisions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-23 10:21 +1200
Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-23 02:13 +0200
Re: Design decisions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-23 12:59 +1200
Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-23 11:03 +0200
Re: Design decisions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-23 21:52 +1200
Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-23 12:32 +0200
Re: Design decisions Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 13:54 +0100
Re: Design decisions "Joe." <antelope3@news.net> - 2012-06-25 00:36 -0600
Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-22 10:42 +0200
Re: Design decisions Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 17:18 +0100
Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-24 18:32 +0200
Re: Design decisions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-21 18:43 -0400
Re: Design decisions "Joe." <antelope3@news.net> - 2012-06-25 00:40 -0600
Re: Design decisions "Joe." <antelope3@news.net> - 2012-06-25 00:28 -0600
Re: Design decisions "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-06-22 08:35 +0200
Re: Design decisions Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-06-22 12:40 +0000
Re: Design decisions gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 06:01 -0700
Re: Design decisions Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-06-22 14:26 +0000
Re: Design decisions Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-06-22 14:01 +0100
Re: Design decisions David Resnick <lndresnick@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 06:13 -0700
Re: Design decisions Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-06-22 19:05 +0200
Re: Design decisions "Joe." <antelope3@news.net> - 2012-06-25 00:27 -0600
csiph-web