Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #11845 > unrolled thread
| Started by | scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-10-18 00:00 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-10-27 00:18 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 291 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) - 2011-10-18 00:00 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-10-18 05:20 -0600
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-11 23:51 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Dann Corbit <dcorbit@connx.com> - 2011-10-18 14:37 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-19 10:52 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "James" <no@spam.invalid> - 2011-10-18 16:47 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-19 00:02 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Davy" <Bill@SynectixLtd.com> - 2011-10-19 08:57 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-19 02:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-10-19 13:41 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-20 00:04 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-19 15:32 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-10-19 09:57 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-19 20:46 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-19 13:06 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-19 20:49 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-10-19 19:04 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:43 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-21 16:56 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "sadsailor" <overboard@the.oceans> - 2011-10-21 16:37 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-21 17:17 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-10-21 13:30 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-22 07:57 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) - 2011-10-22 15:51 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-22 18:19 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 08:00 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-23 15:39 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 05:55 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-23 21:30 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-10-23 14:27 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 10:28 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-23 08:36 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:21 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:21 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:23 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-23 12:35 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 14:01 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-23 14:34 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-10-23 13:49 -0600
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 18:14 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-24 01:59 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-24 06:25 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-24 14:43 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-24 09:01 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation André Gillibert <MetaEntropy.removeThis@gmail.com> - 2011-10-24 18:23 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-25 08:02 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-25 00:44 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 21:24 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-26 00:58 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 23:21 +1300
OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-29 06:56 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net> - 2011-10-29 21:18 +0200
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 10:43 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 02:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 08:43 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 03:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 08:17 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 06:16 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-28 00:23 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-27 23:57 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-28 00:20 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-29 23:36 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-30 12:42 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-30 10:46 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-12-01 23:20 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-02 12:39 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 00:42 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-02 13:45 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 00:57 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-02 08:49 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-12-02 17:45 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-11-30 21:42 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-30 22:59 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2011-11-30 22:09 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 11:20 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:21 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 01:22 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-01 10:18 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 04:57 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-02 08:34 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-12-01 13:38 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-01 13:47 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-02 08:10 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 17:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-30 18:35 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-12-01 02:53 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-01 07:07 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-12-04 00:35 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-12-03 18:28 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-11-30 14:10 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:15 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 12:21 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:29 +0100
Operator overloading extensions (Was re: OOP and C++ and C) "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-12-01 15:50 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-12-01 07:38 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 20:26 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-30 18:37 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 02:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-01 07:09 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net> - 2011-11-01 10:13 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 23:02 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-01 04:04 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 08:45 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-01 09:25 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 09:30 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 12:59 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 10:30 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 14:33 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 13:10 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 16:37 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 13:44 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 21:03 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-01 16:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-03 02:38 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 22:53 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 16:03 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 01:07 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-30 21:22 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 04:41 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-30 08:40 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 10:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 03:03 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 02:59 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-30 07:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 08:13 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 18:05 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 11:38 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 07:56 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 01:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 21:34 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 08:36 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:37 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 06:55 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 06:08 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 10:42 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 07:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 12:54 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:47 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 19:46 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 01:49 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-31 15:15 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-31 18:04 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 11:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-01 03:03 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:18 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:39 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:54 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 10:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-01 03:22 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 23:08 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:04 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:37 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 10:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:59 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:52 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 17:25 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-01 21:44 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 07:07 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 08:33 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 18:00 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 03:20 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-10-31 20:07 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 13:48 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 22:18 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-01 03:59 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 22:52 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 04:27 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-01 18:56 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 12:59 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 16:46 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 14:16 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 21:35 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 08:22 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-02 10:14 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 12:09 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 13:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-02 22:11 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:32 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-02 21:31 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-03 07:41 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 19:58 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-11-02 21:45 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-02 14:26 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-02 11:07 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-03 12:51 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-03 06:36 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-03 14:34 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-03 08:41 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-04 03:30 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 09:03 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-04 09:24 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 09:44 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-09 00:06 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-09 00:03 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-09 10:57 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 09:13 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-10 11:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 13:23 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 14:47 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-11 00:17 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 09:29 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 18:05 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 18:19 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-11 13:28 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 18:37 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-11 14:13 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 11:17 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 21:49 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 22:11 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 14:19 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 02:50 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-12 01:44 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 17:54 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-12 11:38 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-14 02:36 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-14 16:01 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 10:40 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 18:36 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 11:51 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 12:08 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 20:25 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 13:11 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 21:46 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 14:56 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 23:01 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:50 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-15 02:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-15 08:52 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-11-14 20:15 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-15 02:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 14:17 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 22:38 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-11-14 14:45 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:21 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 23:40 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:59 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-14 12:16 -0600
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-11-14 18:25 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 14:15 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 23:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 16:16 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 19:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 12:02 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-14 02:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 08:36 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-10 17:00 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-11 04:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 09:27 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-12 04:27 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-10 23:00 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 15:10 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-11 03:30 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-11 00:41 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 05:14 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-11-21 02:39 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 11:00 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-10-30 19:09 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 11:51 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 20:36 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-24 12:16 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 20:30 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-24 15:52 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-24 21:40 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201110.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-10-26 06:13 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 01:34 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-26 09:47 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201110.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-10-27 04:54 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-27 11:27 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation AK <anoopkammaran@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 00:01 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:50 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2011-10-20 11:07 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-20 16:31 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-20 11:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-20 11:43 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-21 08:35 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-21 02:45 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation André Gillibert <MetaEntropy.removeThis@gmail.com> - 2011-10-24 18:41 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 14:06 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-25 10:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-20 21:58 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-20 21:52 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-10-23 10:32 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 05:58 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:40 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-25 10:19 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 01:53 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-26 14:40 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-27 00:18 -0700
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 23:02 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <9h9uddFeluU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12430 |
On 11/ 1/11 10:13 PM, Markus Wichmann wrote: > On 30.10.2011 18:43, nroberts wrote: >> >> Of course, the generic programming paradigm, which is what templates >> are pretty much about, is often foreign to someone stuck in the C >> world and unwilling to expand their knowledge. This is no different >> from any other tool though. If you don't want to learn these things, >> that's fine, but your willing ignorance isn't a good argument. >> > > Well, I guess you're right about that. I still think it is good design > to actually write only the stuff you need. I once wrote a matrix class. > I only needed it to contain integers, so I wrote it like this. I don't > see why I should have written a template class. Just so that at some > later point I could reuse it? But then again, this class was half a > day's work, so there's no real point. Plus I actually only needed the > Gauss-Jordan algorithm. That's a fair call. If sometime later you need to use the class for some other type, that's the time to make it generic. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 04:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <927640ad-b5a2-4fdc-9629-f2975bccb9eb@g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12430 |
On Nov 1, 11:13 am, Markus Wichmann <nullp...@gmx.net> wrote: > On 30.10.2011 18:43, nroberts wrote: > > C++ however advocates a bottom-up design which often leads to more code > being written than actually used. Also, the code is more general, > because you think about needing a list, before you think about needing a > list of integers. (OK, bad example, as there's already std::list available) > I find a lot of my C functions are general. That's partly a reflection of the type of code I write, at the moment, mainly code to explore DNA sequence data. So I have a lot of functions for pattern matching and doing statistics and loading files in various formats, which I then plug together with throw-away code. -- Visit my website http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 08:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <73631c10-c490-4e3b-9bd1-f03701a376c1@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12430 |
On Nov 1, 2:13 am, Markus Wichmann <nullp...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 30.10.2011 18:43, nroberts wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 12:18 pm, Markus Wichmann <nullp...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > All of these features are important and have their uses. They can all
> > be used badly. Poor design is poor design in C, C++, or any other
> > language.
>
> True, but in C++ you have more possibilities for bad design.
Because you said so....ok.
>
> > Consider this function:
>
> > void function_that_outputs_blob(blob* b);
>
> > If that function does something other than outputting a blob, whatever
> > that means, then people reading code that use it are not going to know
> > what that code does. This is exactly the same for using standard
> > function names like operator++ to mean something other than the
> > standard use or having conversion operators for types to which
> > conversion makes no sense.
>
> That is right, but at the very least, people reading the code are able
> to detect a call to a function, unlike the line I posted.
Why do they need to? All they should be caring about is that x is
being incremented by y and then y is incremented. Who cares if that's
a set of CPU statements or another set of CPU statements? That's the
whole point of working at a higher level than machine language.
>
>
>
> >> - even if they aren't class instances, we have:
> >> - x might be a reference to typeof y
> >> - y might be a reference to something
> >> - x might even reference y, which means that this line invokes
> >> undefined behaviour
> >> - or y might reference x, which yields the same
>
> > These later cases can all occur in C if the line is changed to:
>
> > *x += (*y)++;
>
> That's true too, but then you actually know that x and y must be
> pointers, which isn't obvious from the C++ line.
Again, it shouldn't matter. The kind of convoluted situations in
which you don't know that x and y reference the same variable do not
generally occur.
> No templates were used in that implementation. It was a class that went
> something like:
>
> class TSPrintf {
> std::string format;
> unsigned int pos;
> public:
> TSPrintf(const std::string&);
> TSPrintf& operator()(unsigned int);
> TSPrintf& operator()(char);
> TSPrintf& operator()(const char*);
> TSPrintf& operator()(you_name_it);
>
> };
>
> The call would then go like
>
> TSPrintf("%u errors in %u lines\n")(errors)(lines);
>
> And if you tried funny stuff like
>
> TSPrintf("%s errors\n")(errors);
What a limited, unfortunate, and fragile design.
> > If that's the only example that you've seen though then you're
> > obviously not looking at a lot of C++.
>
> I looked at the STL at another point and lost myself in the code
> somewhere. It's a bit astonishing what kind of stuff you actually need
> to do before you can shift strings into streams.
In other words, "I don't understand it, ergo it's evil." You could
have learned a lot from the STL.
>
> C++ however advocates a bottom-up design which often leads to more code
> being written than actually used. Also, the code is more general,
> because you think about needing a list, before you think about needing a
> list of integers. (OK, bad example, as there's already std::list available)
Well, at least YOU know what I'm thinking.
>
> Yeah. And local typedefs don't always serve to really abbreviate things
> as they were meant to. I once read a template that went along the lines of:
>
> template <typename T> class X {
> typedef T my_local_type;
>
> }
>
> I don't see why one would "abbreviate" T with "my_local_type", but hey,
> that's how they roll.
Which is your ignorance. You should be trying to loose it, not coddle
it and turn it into your argument.
Often one needs to instantiate the type of a parameter or a return.
The broken template you wrote to make a mean for example should have
used this technique. Tell me, do you know how templates that make use
of class X instantiations would get T without that local typedef? I
do:
template < typename T > struct get_T_from_X;
template < typename T > struct get_T_from_X< X<T> > { typedef T
type; };
There are often times when this method is necessary and important, but
even then it's easier to write the default case to refer to a local
typedef instead of specializing to get the parameter.
Of course, all of this is so that you CAN tell what type you are
working with, be that in a return or a parameter. With the new C++
you can use decltype for a return type, but not so easily for the
parameter. This can be much more difficult though, requiring calls to
other 'functions' like declval and such. I don't think the local
typedef solution is going to be superseded any time soon.
> So you cannot figure out what a class function
> actually returns even after you read the declaration.
You need to learn a little about the subject you are speaking about
before your arguments are anything but vapor.
> Well, I guess you're right about that. I still think it is good design
> to actually write only the stuff you need. I once wrote a matrix class.
> I only needed it to contain integers, so I wrote it like this. I don't
> see why I should have written a template class. Just so that at some
> later point I could reuse it? But then again, this class was half a
> day's work, so there's no real point. Plus I actually only needed the
> Gauss-Jordan algorithm.
"I once wrote a matrix class that was only capable of working on
integers. I didn't need anything more than that. Thus I don't see
why anyone would need something that worked on more types."
Got it.
You remind me of the people who've never graduated high school, never
read a book other than some holy scripture, and then yell and scream
about how all the scientists are wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 09:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <fd30eb6d-d6fd-4cc6-b7db-3c2f98ecf4d3@p14g2000pra.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12451 |
On Nov 1, 5:45 pm, nroberts <roberts.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Because you said so....ok. > > What a limited, unfortunate, and fragile design. > > In other words, "I don't understand it, ergo it's evil." You could > have learned a lot from the STL. > > Which is your ignorance. You should be trying to loose it, not coddle > it and turn it into your argument. > > You need to learn a little about the subject you are speaking about > before your arguments are anything but vapor. > > You remind me of the people who've never graduated high school, never > read a book other than some holy scripture, and then yell and scream > about how all the scientists are wrong. > Relax. There are two components to the system, the computer and the human programmer. It's no good having a programming language which is superbly efficient, malleable, with automatic error-checking and so on, if for some reason humans find it difficult to use. There's not much point blaming the human for his stupidity, unless you can hire someone else, and very frequently the person you might really want is nowhere to be found. -- The ten rules of computer programming http://www.malcolmmcleam.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 09:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <827c38d9-2dbb-4e1b-b457-fae7911ee43c@er6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12458 |
On Nov 1, 9:25 am, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Nov 1, 5:45 pm, nroberts <roberts.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Because you said so....ok. > > > What a limited, unfortunate, and fragile design. > > > In other words, "I don't understand it, ergo it's evil." You could > > have learned a lot from the STL. > > > Which is your ignorance. You should be trying to loose it, not coddle > > it and turn it into your argument. > > > You need to learn a little about the subject you are speaking about > > before your arguments are anything but vapor. > > > You remind me of the people who've never graduated high school, never > > read a book other than some holy scripture, and then yell and scream > > about how all the scientists are wrong. > > Relax. > > There are two components to the system, the computer and the human > programmer. > > It's no good having a programming language which is superbly > efficient, malleable, with automatic error-checking and so on, if for > some reason humans find it difficult to use. There's not much point > blaming the human for his stupidity, There is when it clearly their own doing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 12:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <4EB0257B.9090505@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #12458 |
On 11/01/2011 12:25 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: ... > There are two components to the system, the computer and the human > programmer. > > It's no good having a programming language which is superbly > efficient, malleable, with automatic error-checking and so on, if for > some reason humans find it difficult to use. ... Everything is difficult to use, for some humans. C++ is a substantially more complicated language than C, which means that there's larger number of people who find it difficult. I personally think that it comes uncomfortably close to being too difficult to learn to be useful; but I don't think it's actually crossed that line - yet. It looks to me like the next version of the C++ standard might do the trick. > ... There's not much point > blaming the human for his stupidity, unless you can hire someone else, However, people who find these aspects of C++ easier to deal with than you do are not too hard to find. Whether they can be hired depends upon how much you can afford to pay them. I've never been authorized to hire someone to do C++ programming, so I've no idea what that level of expertise costs in the current market.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 10:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <bbd061b9-4bf9-4f97-9a48-728ebc51884f@j39g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12462 |
On Nov 1, 9:59 am, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 11/01/2011 12:25 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > ... > > > There are two components to the system, the computer and the human > > programmer. > > > It's no good having a programming language which is superbly > > efficient, malleable, with automatic error-checking and so on, if for > > some reason humans find it difficult to use. ... > > Everything is difficult to use, for some humans. C++ is a substantially > more complicated language than C... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3027177/what-are-the-differences-between-c-and-c/3027347#3027347
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 14:33 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <4EB03B73.7070102@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #12464 |
On 11/01/2011 01:30 PM, nroberts wrote: > On Nov 1, 9:59 am, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: >> On 11/01/2011 12:25 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> ... >> >>> There are two components to the system, the computer and the human >>> programmer. >> >>> It's no good having a programming language which is superbly >>> efficient, malleable, with automatic error-checking and so on, if for >>> some reason humans find it difficult to use. ... >> >> Everything is difficult to use, for some humans. C++ is a substantially >> more complicated language than C... > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3027177/what-are-the-differences-between-c-and-c/3027347#3027347 I notice that the answer you pointed me at is number 4 in terms of number of votes, and conflicts with all three answers that got a higher number of votes. Voting isn't proof, but when a lot of people vote in favor of answers asserting that C++ is the harder language, I think we can assume, at the very least, that those particular people found it more difficult. The fundamental problem with the idea that C++ has an "easy" part that you can learn without needing to worry about the "difficult" C part, is that both are parts of the same language, and that most people writing in that language write code that mixes features from both parts. Therefore, you won't be able to understand the code written by those other people without gaining a certain amount of mastery of the C-like part of C++. Indeed, a fair number of people consider themselves to be C++ programmers because they used a C++ compiler to compile their code, despite the fact that their code that makes little or no use of C++ features that are not also supported by the C standard. Therefore, you can't gain an understanding of C++ that is sufficient to do maintenance on other people's code, without also mastering most of the features that it shares in common with C; and those features add up to something like 99% of the features specified in the C90 standard (a slightly smaller percentage of the C99 standard).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 13:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <d428b4dc-39ef-4900-a2e7-f0e00b19bb3c@h24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12465 |
On Nov 1, 11:33 am, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 11/01/2011 01:30 PM, nroberts wrote: > > > On Nov 1, 9:59 am, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 11/01/2011 12:25 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >> ... > > >>> There are two components to the system, the computer and the human > >>> programmer. > > >>> It's no good having a programming language which is superbly > >>> efficient, malleable, with automatic error-checking and so on, if for > >>> some reason humans find it difficult to use. ... > > >> Everything is difficult to use, for some humans. C++ is a substantially > >> more complicated language than C... > > >http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3027177/what-are-the-differences-b... > > I notice that the answer you pointed me at is number 4 in terms of > number of votes, and conflicts with all three answers that got a higher > number of votes. Voting isn't proof, but when a lot of people vote in > favor of answers asserting that C++ is the harder language, I think we > can assume, at the very least, that those particular people found it > more difficult. I don't think that's an assumption that can be made either way. As can be seen through the ample evidence here in this thread, people like to chatter on about the difficulty of things they've never bothered to learn. 99% of the words that come out of the mouths of human beings is complete and total crap based more on their preconceptions, biases, and ignorance than on reason or experience. Measuring votes is even more tenuous as people vote for things they like to hear, if they're not just voting for the people without even reading what was said (a common occurrence on stackoverflow where there's even chat rooms for people to clique up in and vote up their friends and down people they don't like). This is especially true of religiously motivated conceptions like programming language bigotry. I posted the link because I agree with what it says. I should, I wrote it. It also responds to this "C++ is too big and complex" issue you were bringing up. That site's voting system though is more an interesting social experiment than a viable technological rating.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 16:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <4EB0588E.90409@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #12478 |
On 11/01/2011 04:10 PM, nroberts wrote: > On Nov 1, 11:33 am, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: >> On 11/01/2011 01:30 PM, nroberts wrote: ... >>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3027177/what-are-the-differences-b... >> >> I notice that the answer you pointed me at is number 4 in terms of >> number of votes, and conflicts with all three answers that got a higher >> number of votes. Voting isn't proof, but when a lot of people vote in >> favor of answers asserting that C++ is the harder language, I think we >> can assume, at the very least, that those particular people found it >> more difficult. .... > 99% of the words that come out of the mouths of human beings is > complete and total crap based more on their preconceptions, biases, > and ignorance than on reason or experience. ... That's a pretty misanthropic assessment. Even Sturgeon's law tops out at 90%. Even if it's true, I see no reason why it shouldn't apply equally strongly to both sides of that question. You might also want to consider the possibility that your claim is self-referential. Rather than posting a rather comprehensive slander aimed at ... just about everybody - wouldn't it have been more productive to address the issue I raised? You know - the one about the need to learn enough about the C-like side of C++ to be able to read and understand code written by people who do not choose to avoid that part of the language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 13:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <8b20a67e-9a68-4a7f-9fa3-685fdcf86976@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12484 |
On Nov 1, 1:37 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 11/01/2011 04:10 PM, nroberts wrote: > > > On Nov 1, 11:33 am, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 11/01/2011 01:30 PM, nroberts wrote: > ... > >>>http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3027177/what-are-the-differences-b... > > >> I notice that the answer you pointed me at is number 4 in terms of > >> number of votes, and conflicts with all three answers that got a higher > >> number of votes. Voting isn't proof, but when a lot of people vote in > >> favor of answers asserting that C++ is the harder language, I think we > >> can assume, at the very least, that those particular people found it > >> more difficult. > .... > > 99% of the words that come out of the mouths of human beings is > > complete and total crap based more on their preconceptions, biases, > > and ignorance than on reason or experience. ... > > That's a pretty misanthropic assessment. Even Sturgeon's law tops out at > 90%. Weren't paying much attention, where you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 21:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <j8q4sq$mt0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12486 |
On 11/01/2011 04:44 PM, nroberts wrote: > On Nov 1, 1:37�pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: >> On 11/01/2011 04:10 PM, nroberts wrote: ... >>> 99% of the words that come out of the mouths of human beings is >>> complete and total crap based more on their preconceptions, biases, >>> and ignorance than on reason or experience. ... >> >> That's a pretty misanthropic assessment. Even Sturgeon's law tops out at >> 90%. > > Weren't paying much attention, where you. OK - self-referential it is. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 16:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <lnpqhbifw7.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #12451 |
nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> writes:
> On Nov 1, 2:13 am, Markus Wichmann <nullp...@gmx.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Well, I guess you're right about that. I still think it is good design
>> to actually write only the stuff you need. I once wrote a matrix class.
>> I only needed it to contain integers, so I wrote it like this. I don't
>> see why I should have written a template class. Just so that at some
>> later point I could reuse it? But then again, this class was half a
>> day's work, so there's no real point. Plus I actually only needed the
>> Gauss-Jordan algorithm.
>
> "I once wrote a matrix class that was only capable of working on
> integers. I didn't need anything more than that. Thus I don't see
> why anyone would need something that worked on more types."
>
> Got it.
No, you haven't got it.
He didn't say "I don't see why anyone would need something that
worked on more types.". He didn't even imply it. He said that *he*
didn't need it to work on anything other than integers.
Making it generic might have been fairly easy (depending on the
language), but it would have been a non-zero effort. Not only
that, but it's something that could be done later, when *and if*
he had a need to make it work on something other than integers.
And what about testing? If he'd made it generic from the beginning,
then either he'd have to expend extra effort testing it with other
types, *or* he could leave it untested, possibly resulting in unused
untested code.
My "Hello, world" program might need an e-mail client some day; that
doesn't mean I should build it into the first version.
[snip]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-03 02:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <20111102222329.818@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #12301 |
On 2011-10-30, nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 12:18 pm, Markus Wichmann <nullp...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On 29.10.2011 08:56, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>
>> > So do I, and it's definitely workable -- but not having RAII,
>
> Not having scope tied destructors hurts.
Not having scope-tied exit code ("unwind protect") is what hurts!
This hurts even when you have destructors because destructors are
clumsy. They let you run code, but in a remote context somewhere with
its own scope which has no visibility into the scope which is
terminating (i.e. the object that actually needs the clean up).
I would gladly trade C++ destructors for unwind protect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-02 22:53 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <a7f08a5955527b0-7465f@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #12569 |
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 02:38:55AM +0000, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2011-10-30, nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 12:18 pm, Markus Wichmann <nullp...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> On 29.10.2011 08:56, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> >>
> >> > So do I, and it's definitely workable -- but not having RAII,
> >
> > Not having scope tied destructors hurts.
>
> Not having scope-tied exit code ("unwind protect") is what hurts!
>
> This hurts even when you have destructors because destructors are
> clumsy. They let you run code, but in a remote context somewhere with
> its own scope which has no visibility into the scope which is
> terminating (i.e. the object that actually needs the clean up).
>
> I would gladly trade C++ destructors for unwind protect.
Sounds like a pipe dream. HTF are you going to unwind protect Kylie
Minogue? Let's be realistic about this, eh?
Regards,
Uncle Steve
--
My robot girlfriend can beat up your robot girlfriend.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-03 16:03 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <9heejiFilbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12569 |
On 11/ 3/11 03:38 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2011-10-30, nroberts<roberts.noah@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 12:18 pm, Markus Wichmann<nullp...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> On 29.10.2011 08:56, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>>
>>>> So do I, and it's definitely workable -- but not having RAII,
>>
>> Not having scope tied destructors hurts.
>
> Not having scope-tied exit code ("unwind protect") is what hurts!
>
> This hurts even when you have destructors because destructors are
> clumsy. They let you run code, but in a remote context somewhere with
> its own scope which has no visibility into the scope which is
> terminating (i.e. the object that actually needs the clean up).
>
> I would gladly trade C++ destructors for unwind protect.
How would unwind-protect work in cases where you want an object's
destruction to cause the release of a managed resource (a smart pointer
for example)?
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-30 01:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <b8429e86-98be-4b4d-9ea3-7a758b4b5561@n38g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12222 |
On Oct 29, 8:56 am, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+n...@snipabacken.se> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-10-26, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > You're doing object-oriented design when your objects have > > relationships to each other, in C++ class hierarchies, in other > > languages interfaces. > > I accept that object-oriented programming (as Stroustrup defines it, > at least) includes run-time polymorphism. But let's say I do my design, > look for places where a "is-a" relationship is the best solution -- > and I don't find any. Am I suddenly not doing object-oriented design? > > Because that's what happens to me in practice. Less than 5% of my > classes do run-time polymorphism. > Let's say you examine your program, and find that there are no logical subroutines you can break out of the main loop. Are you still doing structured programming? > > > And C++ doesn't buy you much. > > I work in both languages and I can assure you: it *does* make a big > difference. Not the inheritence, but all the other features. > I don't find it does. I find that typically my programs are structured as arrays of arrays of arrays, mainly of structures at the upper levels. Where I need more complex structures, quite often special links are needed for performance, or for the algorithm. So in both cases the use of fancy containers doesn't make much sense. I'm not saying it wouldn't help if there was a way of avoiding the little realloc dance when resizing a C array, but this small benefit doesn't justify all the complexity in interfacing that use of containers introduces. I know that in the C++ stl you can do everything with iterators, the problem is that most programmers aren't disciplined enough to use the system. -- Basic Algorithms: in C http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-30 21:22 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <9h4fpjFgamU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12277 |
On 10/30/11 09:07 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Oct 29, 8:56 am, Jorgen Grahn<grahn+n...@snipabacken.se> wrote: >> On Wed, 2011-10-26, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >>> And C++ doesn't buy you much. >> >> I work in both languages and I can assure you: it *does* make a big >> difference. Not the inheritence, but all the other features. >> > I don't find it does. > > I find that typically my programs are structured as arrays of arrays > of arrays, mainly of structures at the upper levels. Where I need more > complex structures, quite often special links are needed for > performance, or for the algorithm. So in both cases the use of fancy > containers doesn't make much sense. I'm not saying it wouldn't help if > there was a way of avoiding the little realloc dance when resizing a C > array, but this small benefit doesn't justify all the complexity in > interfacing that use of containers introduces. I know that in the C++ > stl you can do everything with iterators, the problem is that most > programmers aren't disciplined enough to use the system. Where is "all the complexity in interfacing" introduced when using a vector of whatever in place of a raw array? As you state, the complexity is significantly reduced by automatic memory management. You seem to do a good job of avoiding answering direct questions, so I'm curious to see if you reply. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-30 04:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <6cfd4656-f3d7-4314-9131-fca65ccea1b1@q16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12280 |
On Oct 30, 10:22 am, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Where is "all the complexity in interfacing" introduced when using a > vector of whatever in place of a raw array? As you state, the > complexity is significantly reduced by automatic memory management. > In C, typically functions that operate on a list will take a pointer to an array of structures, and a count. There's then a loop from 0 to count stepping through the array. In C++ standard template library, the standard way is to pass in two iterators, one to the start and one to the end of the sequence. The iterator is then incremented until it equals the end point. The C++ way is considerably more complicated, both in terms of what the compiler is actually doing, and to use. The proof is that it's very common to see functions written "incorrectly". -- MiniBasic - a complete simple Basic interpreter, in C http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-30 08:40 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <j8jgk8$6hj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12284 |
On 10/30/2011 07:41 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Oct 30, 10:22�am, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Where is "all the complexity in interfacing" introduced when using a >> vector of whatever in place of a raw array? �As you state, the >> complexity is significantly reduced by automatic memory management. >> > In C, typically functions that operate on a list will take a pointer > to an array of structures, and a count. There's then a loop from 0 to > count stepping through the array. > > In C++ standard template library, the standard way is to pass in two > iterators, one to the start and one to the end of the sequence. The > iterator is then incremented until it equals the end point. You can write C that way, too; and the C++ standard library also contains counted versions of most of the functions that take a range delimited by two iterators. Example: std::copy_n(in_array, size, out_array) -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web