Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #103912 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-14 15:37 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-04-26 09:58 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 15:37 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 00:05 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 00:57 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:21 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:24 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:10 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 03:05 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-15 11:38 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 04:28 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-15 13:22 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 05:47 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 10:06 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 05:24 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-15 13:57 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-19 10:27 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-15 15:16 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:14 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-15 18:01 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-15 18:25 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-15 19:14 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-15 10:25 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-15 18:45 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 20:03 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-15 10:12 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-15 10:51 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 12:14 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-15 20:25 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 12:50 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-16 11:50 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 04:44 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 05:28 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-16 14:32 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-16 09:13 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-16 10:38 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-16 11:55 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-16 12:24 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-16 21:32 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-16 12:55 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-16 22:41 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-16 14:02 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-16 15:08 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-16 13:32 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-17 21:19 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 12:01 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-17 09:16 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 18:55 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 08:07 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 20:12 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:04 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-17 22:38 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:47 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-17 14:55 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:11 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-02-17 15:26 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-17 16:15 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:22 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-17 16:37 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-18 11:57 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-18 07:13 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 20:26 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-18 09:17 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 01:18 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:23 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 01:45 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:18 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-18 07:19 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 20:30 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-18 09:18 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-18 07:15 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-24 09:24 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-24 17:51 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-24 10:08 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-24 18:58 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-04-26 05:03 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 11:21 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 09:15 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-24 17:29 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 06:19 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 16:04 +0200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 07:08 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 16:46 +0200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 09:32 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 20:19 +0200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 11:29 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-26 18:51 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-27 09:32 +1200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-27 11:01 +0200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 02:23 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-27 21:31 +1200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-04-27 16:15 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-27 09:35 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 15:12 +0200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 19:13 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-27 11:37 +0200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 15:18 +0200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 08:43 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-18 09:22 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-18 09:44 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-18 11:33 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-18 13:25 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-18 13:47 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-02-18 15:23 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-18 14:53 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-18 16:56 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-18 22:50 -0600
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 09:45 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-19 13:35 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-18 11:24 -0500
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-18 22:48 -0600
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-18 10:04 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-19 17:12 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-19 11:11 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-19 21:14 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 21:22 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-19 12:33 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-19 12:31 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 13:14 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:50 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 15:04 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-20 10:13 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 21:09 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 15:32 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-24 12:44 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-19 21:04 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-19 21:14 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-16 14:48 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-16 15:46 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 16:16 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 04:18 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 06:47 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 09:50 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 04:33 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 15:41 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-21 09:39 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 09:59 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? TickleMe Elmo <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 10:22 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 15:49 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 09:43 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 12:31 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 03:33 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-15 12:47 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 13:06 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 13:15 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? "Patrick.Schluter" <Patrick.Schluter@free.fr> - 2017-02-18 12:36 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? "Patrick.Schluter" <Patrick.Schluter@free.fr> - 2017-02-18 12:41 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 09:42 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 09:58 -0700
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 16:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20170426164657.291e9f91a8f94cb369f4f124@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #108531 |
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> wrote: > I have 17 years of C++, but my style of programming changed in a > way were C++ has no more big advantages over C. > Every time I program in C I can compare in my mind how it > would be implemented in C++. > I can contribute on this subject. Please consider selling your C++ boobs on the C++ group. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 09:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0173d6d9-ee99-48d3-be47-590fbe97273d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #108535 |
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 11:49:54 AM UTC-3, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:08:31 -0700 (PDT) > Thiago Adams wrote: > > > I have 17 years of C++, but my style of programming changed in a > > way were C++ has no more big advantages over C. > > Every time I program in C I can compare in my mind how it > > would be implemented in C++. > > I can contribute on this subject. > > Please consider selling your C++ boobs on the C++ group. ;-) Sorry, I didn't understand your comment. But it seems to be something of bad taste, and if it is, I ask you to avoid speaking to me and others like that. This kind of comment don't help in any sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 20:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20170426201944.99428505a4823bc37acd1467@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #108540 |
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:32:56 -0700 (PDT) Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, I didn't understand your comment. But it seems to be something of bad >taste, and if it is, I ask you to avoid speaking to me and others like that. > This kind of comment don't help in any sense. In other words, stop your C++ masturbation there's no cheerleaders here. I don't give a f*ck of your 17 years of C++ if you can't properly understand standard C. I'm sorry to be a bit rude but I'm completely tired of reading C++ craps here without any purpose if not promoting C++ (and your ego) in the C group. Should we spam the C++ group to balance the pile of sh!t on the balance?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 11:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6de2b82f-bf93-4999-a79b-56442409d656@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #108554 |
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:22:40 PM UTC-3, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:32:56 -0700 (PDT) > Thiago Adams <> wrote: > > > Sorry, I didn't understand your comment. But it seems to be something of bad > >taste, and if it is, I ask you to avoid speaking to me and others like that. > > This kind of comment don't help in any sense. > > In other words, stop your C++ masturbation there's no cheerleaders here. > > I don't give a f*ck of your 17 years of C++ if you can't properly understand > standard C. > > I'm sorry to be a bit rude but I'm completely tired of reading C++ craps here > without any purpose if not promoting C++ (and your ego) in the C group. > > Should we spam the C++ group to balance the pile of sh!t on the balance? You can say whatever you want without being rude. My intention of saying how many years I have of C++ was not to promoting myself, but to say that I can contribute to the subject (C x C++). As I said, I don't see big advantages in C++ compared with C considering the style of programming I am using.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 18:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <y_5MA.6726$3%2.2769@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #108554 |
GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> writes: >I'm sorry to be a bit rude No, you're not. It's your Raison D'etre.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 09:32 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <emchvcFkt88U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #108528 |
On 04/27/17 01:19 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > >> On 02/25/17 06:24 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 02/18/17 08:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> >>>>> You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource >>>>> management is far too important to be left to the programmer, and >>>>> C is for people who think resource management is far too >>>>> important to be left to the machine. >>>> >>>> And C++ sits on the fence! >>> >>> Evangelists annoy me. Evangelizing C++ is no more appropriate >>> here than any other off-topic evangelizing. I'd appreciate it if >>> you would stop doing that. >> >> Curmudgeons annoy me. Are you as curmudgeonly and humourless in the >> flesh? Do I really have to add a smiley to every tongue in cheek >> comment? > > I didn't take your comment as tongue-in-cheek, but either > way prompts the same reaction. That explains most of what follows. >> By what measure is "C++ sits on the fence" evangelising? > > You post here about C++ a lot, noticeably more than you do about > C. Moreover you frequently introduce C++ into threads on other > topics, Usually for similar reasons other posters mention other languages: to compare the way things are done in other languages with the way they are done in C. Others will be suggestions for adding bits from C++ to C that would benefit C without breaking existing code. > Do you know the difference between a zealot and a fanatic? > Zealots can't change their mind; fanatics can't change their > mind, and won't change the subject. Which of those analyses a whole year of someone else's posts? I didn't reply to your other post due to still being in a state of shock... -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 11:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <odsbqh$dli$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108570 |
On 26/04/17 23:32, Ian Collins wrote: > On 04/27/17 01:19 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 02/25/17 06:24 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 02/18/17 08:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource >>>>>> management is far too important to be left to the programmer, and >>>>>> C is for people who think resource management is far too >>>>>> important to be left to the machine. >>>>> >>>>> And C++ sits on the fence! >>>> >>>> Evangelists annoy me. Evangelizing C++ is no more appropriate >>>> here than any other off-topic evangelizing. I'd appreciate it if >>>> you would stop doing that. >>> >>> Curmudgeons annoy me. Are you as curmudgeonly and humourless in the >>> flesh? Do I really have to add a smiley to every tongue in cheek >>> comment? >> >> I didn't take your comment as tongue-in-cheek, but either >> way prompts the same reaction. > > That explains most of what follows. > >>> By what measure is "C++ sits on the fence" evangelising? >> >> You post here about C++ a lot, noticeably more than you do about >> C. Moreover you frequently introduce C++ into threads on other >> topics, > > Usually for similar reasons other posters mention other languages: to > compare the way things are done in other languages with the way they are > done in C. Others will be suggestions for adding bits from C++ to C > that would benefit C without breaking existing code. > C++ /is/ relevant in this newsgroup, as are other programming languages, as long as they are in the context of comparisons with C, influence on C, mixing with C, etc. A language, or a user of a language, progresses by learning from other sources for ideas and inspiration, including other programming languages - not by blocking or resisting all mention of outside forces. C++ is particularly relevant, since most C++ programmers have regular use of C, a good many C programmers have regular contact with C++, and a large proportion of C code is also equally valid as C++ code. The focus of this group is C, and postings about C++ need to be in relation to C or the details of the particular thread. But IMHO it is perfectly reasonable for some posters to have a large proportion of C++ mentions in their posts in a C newsgroup. If a programmer works mainly with C++, and his interest in C is largely in how it relates to C++ work, then it is natural that his posts in a C newsgroup will mostly be in threads where C++ is of relevance or interest. >> Do you know the difference between a zealot and a fanatic? >> Zealots can't change their mind; fanatics can't change their >> mind, and won't change the subject. > > Which of those analyses a whole year of someone else's posts? Actually, I find that analysis slightly creepy. Tim probably knows more about your posts than /you/ do. > > I didn't reply to your other post due to still being in a state of shock... >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 02:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf9ef2e2-6cd3-4719-8281-bf9830d5c7bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #108581 |
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:01:15 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 26/04/17 23:32, Ian Collins wrote: > > On 04/27/17 01:19 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > > >> You post here about C++ a lot, noticeably more than you do about > >> C. Moreover you frequently introduce C++ into threads on other > >> topics, > > > > Usually for similar reasons other posters mention other languages: to > > compare the way things are done in other languages with the way they are > > done in C. Others will be suggestions for adding bits from C++ to C > > that would benefit C without breaking existing code. > > > > C++ /is/ relevant in this newsgroup, as are other programming languages, > as long as they are in the context of comparisons with C, influence on > C, mixing with C, etc. A language, or a user of a language, progresses > by learning from other sources for ideas and inspiration, including > other programming languages - not by blocking or resisting all mention > of outside forces. > C++ is conceited language. If I tried to sell a type of soda as "Coke++" the Coca Cola company would stop me. They'd say I was damaging their brand by implying that mine was superior, whilst at the same time piggy-backing on it to get an immediate base. And any court would agree with them. Then it's very annoying for someone to assume that the reason you prefer C to C++ is because you are not sufficiently intelligent or skilled to use C++. But that's what a lot of C++ people think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 21:31 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <emds32Fkt88U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #108583 |
On 04/27/17 09:23 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:01:15 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 26/04/17 23:32, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 04/27/17 01:19 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> You post here about C++ a lot, noticeably more than you do about >>>> C. Moreover you frequently introduce C++ into threads on other >>>> topics, >>> >>> Usually for similar reasons other posters mention other languages: to >>> compare the way things are done in other languages with the way they are >>> done in C. Others will be suggestions for adding bits from C++ to C >>> that would benefit C without breaking existing code. >>> >> >> C++ /is/ relevant in this newsgroup, as are other programming languages, >> as long as they are in the context of comparisons with C, influence on >> C, mixing with C, etc. A language, or a user of a language, progresses >> by learning from other sources for ideas and inspiration, including >> other programming languages - not by blocking or resisting all mention >> of outside forces. >> > C++ is conceited language. If I tried to sell a type of soda as "Coke++" the > Coca Cola company would stop me. They'd say I was damaging their brand > by implying that mine was superior, whilst at the same time piggy-backing > on it to get an immediate base. And any court would agree with them. That's bollocks, the "++" in the name (at least when the language was created) simply meant C with extras. > Then it's very annoying for someone to assume that the reason you prefer C > to C++ is because you are not sufficiently intelligent or skilled to use C++. > But that's what a lot of C++ people think. Have I ever said that? Have any of the other here who use both languages ever said that? Like David, I do a lot of programming in C as well as C++ (and Python and ...). It all depends which part of a project I am working on. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 16:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsog46d6.ap4.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #108585 |
On 2017-04-27, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 04/27/17 09:23 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:01:15 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >>> On 26/04/17 23:32, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> On 04/27/17 01:19 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> >>>>> You post here about C++ a lot, noticeably more than you do about >>>>> C. Moreover you frequently introduce C++ into threads on other >>>>> topics, >>>> >>>> Usually for similar reasons other posters mention other languages: to >>>> compare the way things are done in other languages with the way they are >>>> done in C. Others will be suggestions for adding bits from C++ to C >>>> that would benefit C without breaking existing code. >>>> >>> >>> C++ /is/ relevant in this newsgroup, as are other programming languages, >>> as long as they are in the context of comparisons with C, influence on >>> C, mixing with C, etc. A language, or a user of a language, progresses >>> by learning from other sources for ideas and inspiration, including >>> other programming languages - not by blocking or resisting all mention >>> of outside forces. >>> >> C++ is conceited language. If I tried to sell a type of soda as "Coke++" the >> Coca Cola company would stop me. They'd say I was damaging their brand >> by implying that mine was superior, whilst at the same time piggy-backing >> on it to get an immediate base. And any court would agree with them. > > That's bollocks, the "++" in the name (at least when the language was > created) simply meant C with extras. If x equals 42, x++ also equals 42. If one wanted a name for "x with extras" then x++ is actually a misnomer. x++ has the side effect of incrementing x, so, in the end, x is better than x++ ! Perhaps x+1 would be a more appropriate name for "x with extras" than x++ would be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 09:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b993dd66-d6ac-43d1-9f50-59b19135d946@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #108609 |
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 11:19:03 AM UTC-5, Ike Naar wrote: > If x equals 42, x++ also equals 42. > If one wanted a name for "x with extras" then x++ is actually a misnomer. The joke I remember from the late 1980s was "Take C. Improve it. Use the old one."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 15:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20170428151219.6308167af3beba3f4c0a0428@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #108610 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:35:58 -0700 (PDT) supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > The joke I remember from the late 1980s was "Take C. Improve it. Use the old > one." Actually C++ (bonobo) monkeys don't need C with eXtras but only sex. :o)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 19:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87zif1ra6l.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #108609 |
Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes: > x++ has the side effect of incrementing x, so, in the end, x is > better than x++ ! C++ will be C with extras, once its finished... > Perhaps x+1 would be a more appropriate name for "x with extras" than > x++ would be. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 11:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <odsdv9$k60$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108583 |
On 27/04/17 11:23, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:01:15 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 26/04/17 23:32, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 04/27/17 01:19 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> You post here about C++ a lot, noticeably more than you do about >>>> C. Moreover you frequently introduce C++ into threads on other >>>> topics, >>> >>> Usually for similar reasons other posters mention other languages: to >>> compare the way things are done in other languages with the way they are >>> done in C. Others will be suggestions for adding bits from C++ to C >>> that would benefit C without breaking existing code. >>> >> >> C++ /is/ relevant in this newsgroup, as are other programming languages, >> as long as they are in the context of comparisons with C, influence on >> C, mixing with C, etc. A language, or a user of a language, progresses >> by learning from other sources for ideas and inspiration, including >> other programming languages - not by blocking or resisting all mention >> of outside forces. >> > C++ is conceited language. If I tried to sell a type of soda as "Coke++" the > Coca Cola company would stop me. They'd say I was damaging their brand > by implying that mine was superior, whilst at the same time piggy-backing > on it to get an immediate base. And any court would agree with them. You do realise that there is a bit of a difference here? C++ is a language which was derived from the C programming language - its name is natural and logical. Using "C++" as a name for a programming language is a bit like Coca Cola /themselves/ making a version of coke with extra caffeine called "Coke++", which would be entirely reasonable. > > Then it's very annoying for someone to assume that the reason you prefer C > to C++ is because you are not sufficiently intelligent or skilled to use C++. I would agree that would be annoying. Fortunately, I have never heard that opinion - or seen any indication that this opinion was implied. > But that's what a lot of C++ people think. > That is perhaps your unlucky experience, but it is not indicated by any posts I have seen in this newsgroup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 15:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20170427151829.308c7233ec27a6f17afe79e3@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #108583 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > Then it's very annoying for someone to assume that the reason you prefer C > to C++ is because you are not sufficiently intelligent or skilled to use C++. > But that's what a lot of C++ people think. Please don't feed C++ monkeys with human food. They are unable to appreciate the french cuisine...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 08:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20170218084301.f1f3ed470a1ab96c9ea6240b@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #104120 |
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 07:19:50 +0000 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource management > is far too important to be left to the programmer, and C is for people > who think resource management is far too important to be left to the > machine. This make me think about some people prefer to take a bus instead of driving a car because they are not so confident in their own skills... :o)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 09:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o893kb$gu3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104123 |
On 18/02/17 07:43, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 07:19:50 +0000 > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >> You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource management >> is far too important to be left to the programmer, and C is for people >> who think resource management is far too important to be left to the >> machine. > > This make me think about some people prefer to take a bus instead of driving > a car because they are not so confident in their own skills... :o) And in many cases they're right. In fact, they don't have to know how to drive /at all/ if they take the bus - as long as they don't mind the journey taking a bit longer than it would by car. Also, the bus may be cheaper than a car if one doesn't travel very often, and it means the roads are less cluttered with cars, making the journey more pleasant for those who do know how to drive cars. A fine analogy, in fact --- but beware! Most buses don't supply seat-belts. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 09:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e41988a9-fe9c-4bff-ba05-81f15e6e93cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #104120 |
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 1:19:57 AM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote: > You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource management > is far too important to be left to the programmer, and C is for people > who think resource management is far too important to be left to the > machine. I'd say LISP is for people who prefer to work with nested collections of values, as values, rather than as a type of resource. Ritchie's language is for people who want the power to manage memory as a resource which can be repurposed as the programmer sees fit, even though that means that only fixed-sized objects can behave as values.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 11:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o89bb1$8q1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104117 |
On 18/02/2017 03:18, Ian Collins wrote: > On 02/18/17 01:45 PM, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:23:43 +1300 >> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> In this instance no liberty is being surrendered. >> >> I agree nobody is forced to implement annex K in a C11 conforming >> compiler. > > I wasn't really considering annex K in of C11 when it comes to adding > safety features, I was thinking of the bits of C++ that allow one to > write safer code. I the Microsoft so called safe functions for be more > of an unattached seat belt! > >> You should admit that whatever security features you can provide to >> programmers, bad behaviors hurt in programs and in life in general. These >> security features looks like magic pills to cure fat people without >> teaching >> them how to feed in a healthy manner their body. Once more, hiding >> bugs under >> the carpet makes their correction more difficult. > > If then language stops me mixing apples and oranges or helps me to > automate resource management, I'm all for it. How does C++ manage that? Can it literally stop you mixing apples and oranges as easily as you can in Pascal or Ada? -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 13:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o89ebo$p0l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104132 |
On 18/02/17 12:33, BartC wrote:
> On 18/02/2017 03:18, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 02/18/17 01:45 PM, GOTHIER Nathan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:23:43 +1300
>>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In this instance no liberty is being surrendered.
>>>
>>> I agree nobody is forced to implement annex K in a C11 conforming
>>> compiler.
>>
>> I wasn't really considering annex K in of C11 when it comes to adding
>> safety features, I was thinking of the bits of C++ that allow one to
>> write safer code. I the Microsoft so called safe functions for be more
>> of an unattached seat belt!
>>
>>> You should admit that whatever security features you can provide to
>>> programmers, bad behaviors hurt in programs and in life in general.
>>> These
>>> security features looks like magic pills to cure fat people without
>>> teaching
>>> them how to feed in a healthy manner their body. Once more, hiding
>>> bugs under
>>> the carpet makes their correction more difficult.
>>
>> If then language stops me mixing apples and oranges or helps me to
>> automate resource management, I'm all for it.
>
> How does C++ manage that? Can it literally stop you mixing apples and
> oranges as easily as you can in Pascal or Ada?
>
Since we are talking about programming languages, we cannot possibly be
"literally" mixing apples and oranges. But you are not the first person
to misuse the word "literally".
Here is a quick example - real life C++ code would probably use
templates to avoid duplication when creating a variety of fruit, and may
allow more advanced things like Richard's fruit salads. But it shows
the point:
class apples {
int x;
public:
apples(int y = 0) : x(y) {}
apples operator + (apples y) { return x + y.x; }
};
class oranges {
int x;
public:
oranges(int y = 0) : x(y) {}
oranges operator + (oranges y) { return x + y.x; }
};
apples addApples(apples a, apples b) {
return a + b;
}
oranges addOranges(oranges a, oranges b) {
return a + b;
}
apples mix(apples a, oranges b) {
return a + b;
// ERROR!! no match for "operator + "
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web