Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #162767 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mehdi Amini <atorrses@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-09-20 10:54 +0430 |
| Last post | 2021-10-21 13:15 +0200 |
| Articles | 19 on this page of 119 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C23 (C2x) changes Mehdi Amini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2021-09-20 10:54 +0430
Re: C23 (C2x) changes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-20 09:35 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Mehdi Amini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2021-09-21 11:01 +0430
Re: C23 (C2x) changes John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-09-20 10:41 -0500
Re: C23 (C2x) changes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-20 18:17 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-20 18:55 +0100
Re: C23 (C2x) changes scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-20 18:21 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-20 21:39 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-20 21:07 +0100
Re: C23 (C2x) changes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-20 22:59 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-20 22:29 +0100
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-20 17:43 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-21 17:56 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-21 18:05 +0100
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-21 11:42 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-22 11:37 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-22 11:55 +0100
Re: C23 (C2x) changes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-22 14:21 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-22 13:58 +0100
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Ian Pilcher <arequipeno@gmail.com> - 2021-09-22 12:02 -0500
Re: C23 (C2x) changes scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-22 17:19 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-20 23:05 +0100
Re: C23 (C2x) changes scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-20 22:47 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2021-09-20 22:58 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-02 07:16 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-02 15:15 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-20 17:45 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-09-27 17:15 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-27 17:38 +0100
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-09-27 23:18 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-09-28 13:53 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-02 08:07 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-02 15:18 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 15:04 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-03 01:58 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 22:06 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-03 10:43 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-03 13:30 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-04 05:04 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-03 23:24 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-04 06:54 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-04 09:58 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-04 15:52 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-04 10:45 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-04 20:30 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-06 03:57 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-06 12:27 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 03:38 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-15 11:35 +0100
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2021-10-15 18:27 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-15 20:08 +0100
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2021-10-15 19:20 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-15 21:50 +0100
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2021-10-03 09:43 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-10-03 18:53 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-03 13:55 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes William Ahern <william@25thandClement.com> - 2021-09-21 22:57 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-02 08:55 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-02 16:36 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-09-22 20:27 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-09-22 22:25 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-22 14:05 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-22 23:24 +0100
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2021-09-22 18:49 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-09-23 18:47 +0200
Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) William Ahern <william@25thandClement.com> - 2021-09-23 21:11 -0700
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-24 08:51 +0200
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-09-24 09:30 +0200
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-24 07:52 +0000
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-09-24 12:32 +0200
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-24 10:49 +0000
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-09-24 14:46 +0200
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-24 18:14 +0200
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 01:00 +0000
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-09-25 07:44 +0200
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 11:28 +0000
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-09-28 10:56 +0000
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 09:48 +0200
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 11:30 +0000
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2021-09-25 20:49 +0000
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-26 00:04 +0000
Re: Static bounds checking (was Re: C23 (C2x) changes) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-26 06:56 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 10:15 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 11:15 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-27 22:11 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 14:20 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 14:31 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Mehdi Amini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 10:43 +0330
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-06 04:01 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2021-10-06 04:42 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-29 04:04 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-29 16:34 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-10-06 19:07 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-07 11:06 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-10-07 19:31 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-07 22:14 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2021-10-08 06:18 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2021-10-08 06:21 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-29 04:01 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-15 12:59 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2021-10-15 16:50 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-16 07:51 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-16 11:50 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-16 21:28 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2021-10-17 17:18 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-17 20:00 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-17 19:17 +0100
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-18 06:49 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-18 11:23 +0100
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-18 14:09 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-21 01:07 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-21 01:02 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-10-16 21:28 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-17 06:04 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-10-17 19:35 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-17 20:01 +0200
Re: C23 (C2x) changes "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-17 14:15 -0700
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-21 01:02 +0000
Re: C23 (C2x) changes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-21 13:15 +0200
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-15 16:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsmjcan.8iv.jj@iridium.wf32df> |
| In reply to | #163094 |
On 2021-10-15, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >> My impression is that as time goes on C is looking more and >> more like C++ and less and less like C. That's a bad trend. > > C should be dropped in favour of C++ for almost any project. With C > you have a dramatic less development-performance and make much more > bugs. If Chrome f.e. would be developed in C, it would be at least > five times the code and ten times the number of bugs. So you reckon if you re-code the linux kernel in C++ it would be 5 times less code and 10 times less buggy? sssshhhh....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-16 07:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skdp9s$i4b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163096 |
Am 15.10.2021 um 18:50 schrieb Jim Jackson: > On 2021-10-15, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >>> My impression is that as time goes on C is looking more and >>> more like C++ and less and less like C. That's a bad trend. >> >> C should be dropped in favour of C++ for almost any project. With C >> you have a dramatic less development-performance and make much more >> bugs. If Chrome f.e. would be developed in C, it would be at least >> five times the code and ten times the number of bugs. > > So you reckon if you re-code the linux kernel in C++ it would be 5 times > less code and 10 times less buggy? I think the Linux-kernel isn't such complex as Chrome. But the code-size would be a fraction in C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-16 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <skf6to$fqs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163101 |
On 10/15/2021 10:51 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 15.10.2021 um 18:50 schrieb Jim Jackson: >> On 2021-10-15, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> My impression is that as time goes on C is looking more and >>>> more like C++ and less and less like C. That's a bad trend. >>> >>> C should be dropped in favour of C++ for almost any project. With C >>> you have a dramatic less development-performance and make much more >>> bugs. If Chrome f.e. would be developed in C, it would be at least >>> five times the code and ten times the number of bugs. >> >> So you reckon if you re-code the linux kernel in C++ it would be 5 times >> less code and 10 times less buggy? > > I think the Linux-kernel isn't such complex as Chrome. Really? > But the code-size would be a fraction in C++. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-16 21:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skf94f$v13$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163103 |
Am 16.10.2021 um 20:50 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 10/15/2021 10:51 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 15.10.2021 um 18:50 schrieb Jim Jackson: >>> On 2021-10-15, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> My impression is that as time goes on C is looking more and >>>>> more like C++ and less and less like C. That's a bad trend. >>>> >>>> C should be dropped in favour of C++ for almost any project. With C >>>> you have a dramatic less development-performance and make much more >>>> bugs. If Chrome f.e. would be developed in C, it would be at least >>>> five times the code and ten times the number of bugs. >>> >>> So you reckon if you re-code the linux kernel in C++ it would be 5 times >>> less code and 10 times less buggy? >> >> I think the Linux-kernel isn't such complex as Chrome. > > Really? Think that Chrome would be at least five times the line-count if it would be written in C. I bet it would be impossible to write stl like Chrome in C. Look at the Oracle DB server: 25 mio lines of C and lots of bugs fixed regulary. Such complex softare would be handled much easier in C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-17 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsmommo.fm5.jj@iridium.wf32df> |
| In reply to | #163104 |
On 2021-10-16, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: > Am 16.10.2021 um 20:50 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/15/2021 10:51 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 15.10.2021 um 18:50 schrieb Jim Jackson: >>>> On 2021-10-15, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> My impression is that as time goes on C is looking more and >>>>>> more like C++ and less and less like C.?? That's a bad trend. >>>>> >>>>> C should be dropped in favour of C++ for almost any project. With C >>>>> you have a dramatic less development-performance and make much more >>>>> bugs. If Chrome f.e. would be developed in C, it would be at least >>>>> five times the code and ten times the number of bugs. >>>> >>>> So you reckon if you re-code the linux kernel in C++ it would be 5 times >>>> less code and 10 times less buggy? >>> >>> I think the Linux-kernel isn't such complex as Chrome. >> >> Really? > > Think that Chrome would be at least five times the line-count if it > would be written in C. I bet it would be impossible to write stl like > Chrome in C. Look at the Oracle DB server: 25 mio lines of C and lots > of bugs fixed regulary. Such complex softare would be handled much > easier in C++. Linux currently has about 27 million lines of code. I think you may be right about C++ for many userland graphical programs. Can you name an OS written in C++?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-17 20:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skhoc0$arv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163107 |
> Linux currently has about 27 million lines of code. > I think you may be right about C++ for many userland graphical programs. > Can you name an OS written in C++? Symbian and Haiku. That's not a matter of necesities that most operating systems are written in C, that's just a matter of the writer's mindeset. Writing an operating system in C++ would result in much less code and much less bugs - if you use the language properly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-17 19:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <skhpce$jbs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163109 |
On 17/10/2021 19:00, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Linux currently has about 27 million lines of code. >> I think you may be right about C++ for many userland graphical programs. >> Can you name an OS written in C++? > > Symbian and Haiku. > That's not a matter of necesities that most operating systems are > written in C, that's just a matter of the writer's mindeset. Writing > an operating system in C++ would result in much less code Less code that /you/ have to write. Until you expand all those templates. Overall, it might be a different picture. That's assuming you make use of that ability to keep user-code shorter. The examples I've seen of yours, is to take advantage of all those toys to make user-code /more/ complicated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-18 06:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skiucf$s55$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163111 |
> Less code that /you/ have to write. Until you expand all > those templates. Overall, it might be a different picture. Do you think someone inspects the code expanded through templates ? No one does that. > The examples I've seen of yours, is to take advantage of all those > toys to make user-code /more/ complicated. That's wrong. C++ almost always results in simpler code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-18 11:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <skjhuk$u9n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163113 |
On 18/10/2021 05:49, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Less code that /you/ have to write. Until you expand all >> those templates. Overall, it might be a different picture. > > Do you think someone inspects the code expanded through templates ? > No one does that. It might be an issue if the resulting binary is several times the size of the C equivalent. >> The examples I've seen of yours, is to take advantage of all those >> toys to make user-code /more/ complicated. > > That's wrong. C++ almost always results in simpler code. That was my point. It /could/ do (setting aside C++'s busy syntax). But all examples of yours look like gobbledygook, even making use of those libraries. It seems like you're just pulling in all those extra features because you can.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-18 14:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skjo69$pvd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163114 |
>> Do you think someone inspects the code expanded through templates ? >> No one does that. > It might be an issue if the resulting binary is several times the size > of the C equivalent. Why should that be so ? The only thing that takes more space are the tables for table-driven exception-handling, but this code isn't usually executed. The other code is the same as you would write it manually in C, but it takes much less time to write. >> That's wrong. C++ almost always results in simpler code. > That was my point. It /could/ do (setting aside C++'s busy syntax). But > all examples of yours look like gobbledygook, ... That's not true. I've always received a lot of praise for my coding-style.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-21 01:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <533cJ.2310$1n1.194@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #163109 |
On 2021-10-17, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >> Linux currently has about 27 million lines of code. >> I think you may be right about C++ for many userland graphical programs. >> Can you name an OS written in C++? > > Symbian and Haiku. True Symbian is DEAD, let LIVE "Haiku :P -- 7-77-777 Evil Sinner! with software, you repeat same experiment, expecting different results...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-21 01:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7%2cJ.2543$oo4.566@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #163107 |
On 2021-10-17, Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote: > On 2021-10-16, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >> Am 16.10.2021 um 20:50 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>> On 10/15/2021 10:51 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 15.10.2021 um 18:50 schrieb Jim Jackson: >>>>> On 2021-10-15, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> My impression is that as time goes on C is looking more and >>>>>>> more like C++ and less and less like C.?? That's a bad trend. >>>>>> >>>>>> C should be dropped in favour of C++ for almost any project. With C >>>>>> you have a dramatic less development-performance and make much more >>>>>> bugs. If Chrome f.e. would be developed in C, it would be at least >>>>>> five times the code and ten times the number of bugs. >>>>> >>>>> So you reckon if you re-code the linux kernel in C++ it would be 5 times >>>>> less code and 10 times less buggy? >>>> >>>> I think the Linux-kernel isn't such complex as Chrome. >>> >>> Really? >> >> Think that Chrome would be at least five times the line-count if it >> would be written in C. I bet it would be impossible to write stl like >> Chrome in C. Look at the Oracle DB server: 25 mio lines of C and lots >> of bugs fixed regulary. Such complex softare would be handled much >> easier in C++. > > Linux currently has about 27 million lines of code. > > I think you may be right about C++ for many userland graphical programs. > Can you name an OS written in C++? > That would be interresting venture :P > -- 7-77-777 Evil Sinner! with software, you repeat same experiment, expecting different results...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Guillaume <message@bottle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-16 21:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skf94t$11fp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #163101 |
Le 16/10/2021 à 07:51, Bonita Montero a écrit : > I think the Linux-kernel isn't such complex as Chrome. > But the code-size would be a fraction in C++. First you need to tell us what you mean by code size. To many people, "code size" is actually the size of the binary code. But I suppose you are talking about source code here? (If we were talking about binary code size, I'd venture that the opposite would be true. The size would be likely to be significantly bigger.) Anyway, this is a very common statement, regardless of the project, that using C++ would invariably lead to fewer lines of code. But except for small examples tailored just to show that, I have yet to see a formal study clearly showing the point. And I have seen a lot of C++ projects that were horribly bloated, unnecessarily complex and with a un unreasonablme mess of class hierarchies. But beyond that, does fewer lines of code always mean less coding effort and easier maintenance? Not necessarily. Feel free to rewrite the Linux kernel in C++ though. Or write your own kernel with equivalent functionality. Don't forget to write it such that it can survive 30 years without major rewrites every couple of years. And we'll talk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-17 06:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skg7bg$57r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163105 |
Am 16.10.2021 um 21:28 schrieb Guillaume: > Le 16/10/2021 à 07:51, Bonita Montero a écrit : >> I think the Linux-kernel isn't such complex as Chrome. >> But the code-size would be a fraction in C++. > > First you need to tell us what you mean by code size. > To many people, "code size" is actually the size of the binary code. But > I suppose you are talking about source code here? (If we were talking > about binary code size, I'd venture that the opposite would be true. The > size would be likely to be significantly bigger.) Yes, I'm talking about the LOCs. > Anyway, this is a very common statement, regardless of the project, that > using C++ would invariably lead to fewer lines of code. But except for > small examples tailored just to show that, I have yet to see a formal > study clearly showing the point. And I have seen a lot of C++ projects > that were horribly bloated, unnecessarily complex and with a un > unreasonablme mess of class hierarchies. With C++ you've usually much less complexity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Manfred <noname@add.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-17 19:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skhmtq$1ghs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #163106 |
On 10/17/2021 6:04 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 16.10.2021 um 21:28 schrieb Guillaume: >> Le 16/10/2021 à 07:51, Bonita Montero a écrit : >>> I think the Linux-kernel isn't such complex as Chrome. >>> But the code-size would be a fraction in C++. >> >> First you need to tell us what you mean by code size. >> To many people, "code size" is actually the size of the binary code. >> But I suppose you are talking about source code here? (If we were >> talking about binary code size, I'd venture that the opposite would be >> true. The size would be likely to be significantly bigger.) > > Yes, I'm talking about the LOCs. As Guillame said, this is not really a measure of code efficiency: > But beyond that, does fewer lines of code always mean less coding effort and easier maintenance? Not necessarily. > >> Anyway, this is a very common statement, regardless of the project, >> that using C++ would invariably lead to fewer lines of code. But >> except for small examples tailored just to show that, I have yet to >> see a formal study clearly showing the point. And I have seen a lot of >> C++ projects that were horribly bloated, unnecessarily complex and >> with a un unreasonablme mess of class hierarchies. > > With C++ you've usually much less complexity. That is not properly accurate, I'd rephrase: C++ is better equipped for managing complexity, yes. But, depending on the problem domain, many problems get a simpler and more efficient solution from C than C++. Which is no surprise, it is in fact the reason for which C code can be compiled by C++ compilers - in other words, the reason why C++ has been thought of as a superset of C. (If you limit yourself to Windows application programming then yes, C++ makes life easier than C does)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-17 20:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skhoe5$arv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163108 |
> But, depending on the problem domain, many problems get a simpler and > more efficient solution from C than C++. That's wrong. Its easier to structure all complex data-structures and algorithms in C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-17 14:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ski3pr$puc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163110 |
On 10/17/2021 11:01 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> But, depending on the problem domain, many problems get a simpler and >> more efficient solution from C than C++. > > That's wrong. Its easier to structure all complex data-structures and > algorithms in C++. > Its a lot easier to export a stable API in C. However, writing a kernel in C++ is doable, but a bit tricky because you have to be extra careful. Check this code out, NT 4.0 kernel, C galore... ;^) https://github.com/ZoloZiak/WinNT4/tree/master/private/ntos I wonder what this would look like in C++. Humm... I wonder if they are using C++ for Win11? Anybody know?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-21 01:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d_2cJ.2542$oo4.2056@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #163106 |
On 2021-10-17, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: > Am 16.10.2021 um 21:28 schrieb Guillaume: >> Le 16/10/2021 à 07:51, Bonita Montero a écrit : >>> I think the Linux-kernel isn't such complex as Chrome. >>> But the code-size would be a fraction in C++. >> >> First you need to tell us what you mean by code size. >> To many people, "code size" is actually the size of the binary code. But >> I suppose you are talking about source code here? (If we were talking >> about binary code size, I'd venture that the opposite would be true. The >> size would be likely to be significantly bigger.) > > Yes, I'm talking about the LOCs. > >> Anyway, this is a very common statement, regardless of the project, that >> using C++ would invariably lead to fewer lines of code. But except for >> small examples tailored just to show that, I have yet to see a formal >> study clearly showing the point. And I have seen a lot of C++ projects >> that were horribly bloated, unnecessarily complex and with a un >> unreasonablme mess of class hierarchies. > > With C++ you've usually much less complexity. Yes, but you have to be carefull with C++ as it is not readable and complex. Few people can understand it ... -- 7-77-777 Evil Sinner! with software, you repeat same experiment, expecting different results...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-21 13:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skri4e$4qd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163116 |
Am 21.10.2021 um 03:02 schrieb Branimir Maksimovic: > On 2021-10-17, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >> Am 16.10.2021 um 21:28 schrieb Guillaume: >>> Le 16/10/2021 à 07:51, Bonita Montero a écrit : >>>> I think the Linux-kernel isn't such complex as Chrome. >>>> But the code-size would be a fraction in C++. >>> >>> First you need to tell us what you mean by code size. >>> To many people, "code size" is actually the size of the binary code. But >>> I suppose you are talking about source code here? (If we were talking >>> about binary code size, I'd venture that the opposite would be true. The >>> size would be likely to be significantly bigger.) >> >> Yes, I'm talking about the LOCs. >> >>> Anyway, this is a very common statement, regardless of the project, that >>> using C++ would invariably lead to fewer lines of code. But except for >>> small examples tailored just to show that, I have yet to see a formal >>> study clearly showing the point. And I have seen a lot of C++ projects >>> that were horribly bloated, unnecessarily complex and with a un >>> unreasonablme mess of class hierarchies. >> >> With C++ you've usually much less complexity. > Yes, but you have to be carefull with C++ as it is not readable > and complex. Few people can understand it ... That depends on how you use it. But usually it's more readable and if you use it properly it's impossible to get the same readability in C.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web