Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #349279 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-10 19:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-04-14 11:49 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 59 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
KDE is both bloated & Sucks because it written with C++ rather than C John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 19:02 -0700
Re: KDE is both bloated & Sucks because it written with C++ rather than C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-11 04:23 +0200
KDE is bloated cause it is compiled with C++ rather than C John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 19:57 -0700
Re: KDE is bloated cause it is compiled with C++ rather than C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-11 07:24 +0200
OOPs is Bloated, Poops! John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 03:07 -0700
Re: KDE is bloated cause it is compiled with C++ rather than C Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-11 08:00 -0400
Re: KDE is bloated cause it is compiled with C++ rather than C Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 05:26 -0700
Re: KDE is bloated cause it is compiled with C++ rather than C John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 06:19 -0700
Re: KDE is bloated cause it is compiled with C++ rather than C Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-11 09:38 -0400
Re: KDE is bloated cause it is compiled with C++ rather than C John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 06:16 -0700
Re: KDE is bloated cause it is compiled with C++ rather than C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-11 17:04 +0200
Re: KDE is bloated cause it is compiled with C++ rather than C Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-11 11:59 -0400
Re: KDE is bloated cause it is compiled with C++ rather than C Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 22:27 -0700
Re: KDE is bloated cause it is compiled with C++ rather than C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-11 07:45 +0200
Re: KDE is bloated cause it is compiled with C++ rather than C Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 23:15 -0700
Bow down when you speak to your Moi. I am now a noted Linux Publisher. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 03:08 -0700
Re: KDE is both bloated & Sucks because it written with C++ rather than C DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-10 22:24 -0400
DFS and Two horny muscle armies secretly pounding some ass DFS <nospam@dfs.cum> - 2016-04-11 00:24 -0500
Re: KDE is both bloated & Sucks because it written with C++ rather than C Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-11 12:44 +0200
Re: KDE is both bloated & Sucks because it written with C++ rather than C John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 03:53 -0700
Re: KDE is both bloated & Sucks because it written with C++ rather than C William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-11 12:49 +0100
Re: KDE is both bloated & Sucks because it written with C++ rather than C John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 06:22 -0700
Re: KDE is both bloated & Sucks because it written with C++ rather than C Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:09 -0700
Re: KDE is both bloated & Sucks because it written with C++ rather than C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-11 17:12 +0200
Re: KDE is both bloated & Sucks because it written with C++ rather than C DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-11 13:01 -0400
Re: KDE is both bloated & Sucks because it written with C++ rather than C Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-11 13:07 -0400
OOPs is Bloated, Poops! John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:34 -0700
Re: OOPs is Bloated, Poops! Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 18:14 -0700
Re: OOPs is Bloated, Poops! John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 18:42 -0700
Ignorant comments about C++ and C Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> - 2016-04-12 11:30 +1000
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-11 21:39 -0400
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 18:47 -0700
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> - 2016-04-12 12:23 +1000
OOP is as good an explanation as to why KDE is bloated, as any John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:50 -0700
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> - 2016-04-13 12:02 +1000
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-13 04:19 +0200
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 00:57 -0700
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> - 2016-04-13 19:48 +1000
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 04:41 -0700
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-12 04:48 +0000
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-12 07:00 -0500
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-12 13:33 -0400
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-12 13:39 -0400
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> - 2016-04-13 12:29 +1000
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-12 22:43 -0400
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> - 2016-04-13 19:57 +1000
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-13 08:58 -0400
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-13 11:17 -0400
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Silver Slimer <linux@sucks.balls> - 2016-04-13 11:22 -0400
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-14 05:44 +0000
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-13 05:47 -0400
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> - 2016-04-13 20:01 +1000
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-13 08:44 -0500
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Silver Slimer <linux@sucks.balls> - 2016-04-13 09:58 -0400
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-13 11:15 -0400
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-13 12:43 -0500
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Silver Slimer <linux@sucks.balls> - 2016-04-13 14:11 -0400
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-13 17:14 -0400
Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> - 2016-04-14 11:49 +1000
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | William Poaster <wp@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 12:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ljfstc-2j3.ln1@user-1842.linux.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #349304 |
It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted: > John Gohde wrote: > John Gohde is both bloated & Sucks because he is a self-opinionated prick. Corrected. > Idiot. -- openSUSE 13.2 64-bit KDE 4.14.9 Kernel: 4.2.2-1.gb3ecf72-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Sep 29 18:51:15 UTC 2015 (b3ecf72) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux This message is virus free, as absolutely NO Micro$oft products were used in its preparation. "If you do want to clean your computer of malware, the first software to delete is Windows." http://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 06:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4354eba-b977-47ce-bf3f-76b159679464@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #349307 |
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:50:05 AM UTC-4, William Poaster wrote: > It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted: > > > John Gohde wrote: > > > John Gohde is both bloated & Sucks because he is a self-opinionated prick. > > Corrected. > > > Idiot. ..OOPs is Bloated, Poops! Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs programming eats up tons of computer resources under the theory that programmer time is more valuable than hardware. YOU COLA clowns should try lying to somebody else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 08:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d01bd935-96a2-4411-ac1c-99af92f66202@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #349331 |
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:22:25 PM UTC+9, John Gohde wrote: > On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:50:05 AM UTC-4, William Poaster wrote: > > It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted: > > > > > John Gohde wrote: > > > > > John Gohde is both bloated & Sucks because he is a self-opinionated prick. > > > > Corrected. > > > > > Idiot. > > > ..OOPs is Bloated, Poops! > > Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs programming eats up tons of computer resources under the theory that programmer time is more valuable than hardware. > > YOU COLA clowns should try lying to somebody else. They banned your Moi where they could, USENET is one of a few places he can still keep trolling and that keeps him alive...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 17:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20160411171241.1475cd76@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #349359 |
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:22:25 PM UTC+9, John Gohde wrote: > > On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:50:05 AM UTC-4, William Poaster > > wrote: > > > It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted: > > > > > > > John Gohde wrote: > > > > > > > John Gohde is both bloated & Sucks because he is a > > > self-opinionated prick. > > > > > > Corrected. > > > > > > > Idiot. > > > > > > ..OOPs is Bloated, Poops! > > > > Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs programming > > eats up tons of computer resources under the theory that programmer > > time is more valuable than hardware. > > > > YOU COLA clowns should try lying to somebody else. > > They banned your Moi where they could, USENET is one of a few places > he can still keep trolling and that keeps him alive... Usenet is only free place on internet...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 13:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <negl3e$ssd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #349360 |
On 4/11/2016 11:12 AM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:09:16 -0700 (PDT) > Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:22:25 PM UTC+9, John Gohde wrote: >>> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:50:05 AM UTC-4, William Poaster >>> wrote: >>>> It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted: >>>> >>>>> John Gohde wrote: >>>>> >>>> John Gohde is both bloated & Sucks because he is a >>>> self-opinionated prick. >>>> >>>> Corrected. >>>> >>>>> Idiot. >>> >>> >>> ..OOPs is Bloated, Poops! >>> >>> Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs programming >>> eats up tons of computer resources under the theory that programmer >>> time is more valuable than hardware. >>> >>> YOU COLA clowns should try lying to somebody else. >> >> They banned your Moi where they could, USENET is one of a few places >> he can still keep trolling and that keeps him alive... > > Usenet is only free place on internet... It's great!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 13:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <negles$ua7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #349375 |
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:01:30 -0400, DFS wrote: > On 4/11/2016 11:12 AM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:09:16 -0700 (PDT) >> Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:22:25 PM UTC+9, John Gohde wrote: >>>> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:50:05 AM UTC-4, William Poaster >>>> wrote: >>>>> It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted: >>>>> >>>>>> John Gohde wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> John Gohde is both bloated & Sucks because he is a >>>>> self-opinionated prick. >>>>> >>>>> Corrected. >>>>> >>>>>> Idiot. >>>> >>>> >>>> ..OOPs is Bloated, Poops! >>>> >>>> Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs programming >>>> eats up tons of computer resources under the theory that programmer >>>> time is more valuable than hardware. >>>> >>>> YOU COLA clowns should try lying to somebody else. >>> >>> They banned your Moi where they could, USENET is one of a few places >>> he can still keep trolling and that keeps him alive... >> >> Usenet is only free place on internet... > > > It's great! Assuming an ISP it's free entertainment and the show never stops although there are quite a few repeats. That's ok though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 11:34 -0700 |
| Subject | OOPs is Bloated, Poops! |
| Message-ID | <e8cf69f0-d763-48bb-9f21-10ff84d7ae58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #349375 |
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 1:01:44 PM UTC-4, DFS wrote: > On 4/11/2016 11:12 AM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:09:16 -0700 (PDT) > > Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:22:25 PM UTC+9, John Gohde wrote: > >>> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:50:05 AM UTC-4, William Poaster > >>> wrote: > >>>> It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted: > >>>> > >>>>> John Gohde wrote: > >>>>> > >>>> John Gohde is both bloated & Sucks because he is a > >>>> self-opinionated prick. > >>>> > >>>> Corrected. > >>>> > >>>>> Idiot. > >>> > >>> > >>> ..OOPs is Bloated, Poops! > >>> > >>> Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs programming > >>> eats up tons of computer resources under the theory that programmer > >>> time is more valuable than hardware. > >>> > >>> YOU COLA clowns should try lying to somebody else. > >> > >> They banned your Moi where they could, USENET is one of a few places > >> he can still keep trolling and that keeps him alive... > > > > Usenet is only free place on internet... > > > It's great! ...OOPs is Bloated, Poops!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 18:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOPs is Bloated, Poops! |
| Message-ID | <e05b9bfd-e440-4822-90a2-799336905276@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #349388 |
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 3:34:50 AM UTC+9, John Gohde wrote: > On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 1:01:44 PM UTC-4, DFS wrote: > > On 4/11/2016 11:12 AM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:09:16 -0700 (PDT) > > > Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:22:25 PM UTC+9, John Gohde wrote: > > >>> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:50:05 AM UTC-4, William Poaster > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted: > > >>>> > > >>>>> John Gohde wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>> John Gohde is both bloated & Sucks because he is a > > >>>> self-opinionated prick. > > >>>> > > >>>> Corrected. > > >>>> > > >>>>> Idiot. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ..OOPs is Bloated, Poops! > > >>> > > >>> Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs programming > > >>> eats up tons of computer resources under the theory that programmer > > >>> time is more valuable than hardware. > > >>> > > >>> YOU COLA clowns should try lying to somebody else. > > >> > > >> They banned your Moi where they could, USENET is one of a few places > > >> he can still keep trolling and that keeps him alive... > > > > > > Usenet is only free place on internet... > > > > > > It's great! > > > ...OOPs is Bloated, Poops! Will your KDE Crusade be a part of yo Linux writeup?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 18:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOPs is Bloated, Poops! |
| Message-ID | <8c320001-0134-4848-b2d7-c22cb200724e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #349439 |
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 9:14:52 PM UTC-4, Takuya Saitoh wrote: > On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 3:34:50 AM UTC+9, John Gohde wrote: > > On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 1:01:44 PM UTC-4, DFS wrote: > > > On 4/11/2016 11:12 AM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:09:16 -0700 (PDT) > > > > Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:22:25 PM UTC+9, John Gohde wrote: > > > >>> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:50:05 AM UTC-4, William Poaster > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>> It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> John Gohde wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> John Gohde is both bloated & Sucks because he is a > > > >>>> self-opinionated prick. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Corrected. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Idiot. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> ..OOPs is Bloated, Poops! > > > >>> > > > >>> Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs programming > > > >>> eats up tons of computer resources under the theory that programmer > > > >>> time is more valuable than hardware. > > > >>> > > > >>> YOU COLA clowns should try lying to somebody else. > > > >> > > > >> They banned your Moi where they could, USENET is one of a few places > > > >> he can still keep trolling and that keeps him alive... > > > > > > > > Usenet is only free place on internet... > > > > > > > > > It's great! > > > > > > ...OOPs is Bloated, Poops! > > Will your KDE Crusade be a part of yo Linux writeup? ONLY if Linus Torvalds brings up the issue in one of his talks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 11:30 +1000 |
| Subject | Ignorant comments about C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <570C4F98.3020000@smartchat.net.au> |
| In reply to | #349331 |
On 11/04/16 23:22, John Gohde wrote: > Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs programming > eats up tons of computer resources under the theory that programmer > time is more valuable than hardware. So wrong. Some OO languages such as Smalltalk use lookup tables, which are inherently slow. But C++ uses indexed despatch tables, called virtual tables, to find addresses of polymorphic functions with a single addition operation. The tables themselves are of trivial size, since only one table exists per class, not per object, although each object contains exactly one pointer to the appropriate VT. The time overhead is O(1), and trivial, compared to the massive productivity boost. In fact, anyone trying to "roll your own" with C is much more likely to waste even more time and space by using less optimal (or wrong!) one-off methods compared to the finely honed algorithms in the C++ library. Where C++ is not the right choice is where you MUST know exactly what structures your program uses and how it uses them. This applies to almost no application programs, from window managers to browsers to office suites. The one place it does apply is in the controller for the whole show: the operating system kernel. And Torvalds has made the right choice in using C, not C++, for the linux kernel. -- Ron House Building Peace: http://peacelegacy.org Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 21:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <nehjdq$bib$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #349442 |
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:30:00 +1000, Ron House wrote: > And Torvalds has made the right > choice in using C, not C++, for the linux kernel. Too bad Linux applications suck lemons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 18:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <656529cb-4a8a-40b6-b687-930201af2253@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #349442 |
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 9:30:03 PM UTC-4, Ron House wrote: > On 11/04/16 23:22, John Gohde wrote: > > > Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs programming > > eats up tons of computer resources under the theory that programmer > > time is more valuable than hardware. > > So wrong. Some OO languages such as Smalltalk use lookup tables, which > are inherently slow. But C++ uses indexed despatch tables, called > virtual tables, to find addresses of polymorphic functions with a single > addition operation. The tables themselves are of trivial size, since > only one table exists per class, not per object, although each object > contains exactly one pointer to the appropriate VT. The time overhead is > O(1), and trivial, compared to the massive productivity boost. In fact, > anyone trying to "roll your own" with C is much more likely to waste > even more time and space by using less optimal (or wrong!) one-off > methods compared to the finely honed algorithms in the C++ library. > > Where C++ is not the right choice is where you MUST know exactly what > structures your program uses and how it uses them. This applies to > almost no application programs, from window managers to browsers to > office suites. The one place it does apply is in the controller for the > whole show: the operating system kernel. And Torvalds has made the right > choice in using C, not C++, for the linux kernel. Moi knows what Moi knows. I have no desire to wast moe of my time on the topic because some troll says so. So, show Moi where Linus Torvalds has said essentially the same thing on video. Somehow, I think that anybody who can write machine code directly, like Linus can, would be all that interested in OOPs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 12:23 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <570C5C33.2010008@smartchat.net.au> |
| In reply to | #349446 |
On 12/04/16 11:47, John Gohde wrote: > On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 9:30:03 PM UTC-4, Ron House wrote: >> On 11/04/16 23:22, John Gohde wrote: >> >>> Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs >>> programming eats up tons of computer resources under the theory >>> that programmer time is more valuable than hardware. >> >> So wrong. Some OO languages such as Smalltalk use lookup tables, >> which are inherently slow. But C++ uses indexed despatch tables, >> called virtual tables, to find addresses of polymorphic functions >> with a single addition operation. The tables themselves are of >> trivial size, since only one table exists per class, not per >> object, although each object contains exactly one pointer to the >> appropriate VT. The time overhead is O(1), and trivial, compared to >> the massive productivity boost. In fact, anyone trying to "roll >> your own" with C is much more likely to waste even more time and >> space by using less optimal (or wrong!) one-off methods compared to >> the finely honed algorithms in the C++ library. >> >> Where C++ is not the right choice is where you MUST know exactly >> what structures your program uses and how it uses them. This >> applies to almost no application programs, from window managers to >> browsers to office suites. The one place it does apply is in the >> controller for the whole show: the operating system kernel. And >> Torvalds has made the right choice in using C, not C++, for the >> linux kernel. > > > Moi knows what Moi knows. I have no desire to wast moe of my time on > the topic because some troll says so. And "moi" apparently knows nothing about the subject. Whereas I am a computer scientist with research interests in computer language design and compilers. And what kind of loon refers to himself as "moi"??!! > So, show Moi where Linus > Torvalds has said essentially the same thing on video. What has the validity of my detailed explanation about the workings of C++ got to do with whether any other person has or has not said the same thing? Nitwit. > Somehow, I think that anybody who can write machine code directly, > like Linus can, would be all that interested in OOPs. That's right. He doesn't like it. He is emotionally opposed to it. But nonetheless, not using it for the kernel was the right choice - even though he is emotionally involved. But thanks for that attempt to pretend I said the opposite of what I did - it proves clearly to all that you are troll here. -- Ron House Building Peace: http://peacelegacy.org Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 19:50 -0700 |
| Subject | OOP is as good an explanation as to why KDE is bloated, as any |
| Message-ID | <e6cfa0e7-2e2f-44d0-9921-8567ebafe437@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #349453 |
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:23:50 PM UTC-4, Ron House wrote: > On 12/04/16 11:47, John Gohde wrote: > > On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 9:30:03 PM UTC-4, Ron House wrote: > >> On 11/04/16 23:22, John Gohde wrote: > >> > >>> Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs > >>> programming eats up tons of computer resources under the theory > >>> that programmer time is more valuable than hardware. > >> > >> So wrong. Some OO languages such as Smalltalk use lookup tables, > >> which are inherently slow. But C++ uses indexed despatch tables, > >> called virtual tables, to find addresses of polymorphic functions > >> with a single addition operation. The tables themselves are of > >> trivial size, since only one table exists per class, not per > >> object, although each object contains exactly one pointer to the > >> appropriate VT. The time overhead is O(1), and trivial, compared to > >> the massive productivity boost. In fact, anyone trying to "roll > >> your own" with C is much more likely to waste even more time and > >> space by using less optimal (or wrong!) one-off methods compared to > >> the finely honed algorithms in the C++ library. > >> > >> Where C++ is not the right choice is where you MUST know exactly > >> what structures your program uses and how it uses them. This > >> applies to almost no application programs, from window managers to > >> browsers to office suites. The one place it does apply is in the > >> controller for the whole show: the operating system kernel. And > >> Torvalds has made the right choice in using C, not C++, for the > >> linux kernel. > > > > > > Moi knows what Moi knows. I have no desire to wast moe of my time on > > the topic because some troll says so. > > And "moi" apparently knows nothing about the subject. Whereas I am a > computer scientist with research interests in computer language design > and compilers. And what kind of loon refers to himself as "moi"??!! > > > So, show Moi where Linus > > Torvalds has said essentially the same thing on video. > > What has the validity of my detailed explanation about the workings of > C++ got to do with whether any other person has or has not said the same > thing? Nitwit. You are arguing over what I have disclosed in a hidden footnote in extreme detail. Moi has better things to do with his time. I have yet to explore, which Desktop is better, etc, etc., etc. OOP is as good an explanation as to why KDE is bloated, as any. Moi is the one who brought it up first, rather than the insistent babblings of the COLA trolls. Disclosing anything of any importance on COLA is a complete waste of time. Who has talked about OOP at all on COLA?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 12:02 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <570DA8B9.8070601@smartchat.net.au> |
| In reply to | #349458 |
On 12/04/16 12:50, John Gohde wrote: > On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:23:50 PM UTC-4, Ron House wrote: >> On 12/04/16 11:47, John Gohde wrote: >>> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 9:30:03 PM UTC-4, Ron House wrote: >>>> On 11/04/16 23:22, John Gohde wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs >>>>> programming eats up tons of computer resources under the theory >>>>> that programmer time is more valuable than hardware. >>>> >>>> So wrong. Some OO languages such as Smalltalk use lookup tables, >>>> which are inherently slow. But C++ uses indexed despatch tables, >>>> called virtual tables, to find addresses of polymorphic functions >>>> with a single addition operation. The tables themselves are of >>>> trivial size, since only one table exists per class, not per >>>> object, although each object contains exactly one pointer to the >>>> appropriate VT. The time overhead is O(1), and trivial, compared to >>>> the massive productivity boost. In fact, anyone trying to "roll >>>> your own" with C is much more likely to waste even more time and >>>> space by using less optimal (or wrong!) one-off methods compared to >>>> the finely honed algorithms in the C++ library. ... > You are arguing over what I have disclosed in a hidden footnote in extreme detail. I was telling you, as an expert, in "extreme detail" why C++ is not a "bloated" OO language - in either time or space. This is a discussion group. If you have a counter to my explanation, then give it. No one is going to go off reading vast amounts of off-group, most likely irrelevant material. If there is a counter to my explanation in that material, then YOU tell the readers what it is. Other than that, I think every serious reader here can see the force of my explanation. Anyway, I write here for the serious enquirer, not for fools like you. And what use is a "HIDDEN" footnote??!! You are one seriously ill puppy. Further nonsense from you will be ignored. But I am fair. If you can offer a reasoned counter to my explanation above, I'll answer it. -- Ron House Building Peace: http://peacelegacy.org Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 04:19 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <20160413041933.4c1e72fa@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #349623 |
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:02:33 +1000 Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> wrote: > On 12/04/16 12:50, John Gohde wrote: > > On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:23:50 PM UTC-4, Ron House wrote: > >> On 12/04/16 11:47, John Gohde wrote: > >>> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 9:30:03 PM UTC-4, Ron House wrote: > >>>> On 11/04/16 23:22, John Gohde wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs > >>>>> programming eats up tons of computer resources under the theory > >>>>> that programmer time is more valuable than hardware. > >>>> > >>>> So wrong. Some OO languages such as Smalltalk use lookup tables, > >>>> which are inherently slow. But C++ uses indexed despatch tables, > >>>> called virtual tables, to find addresses of polymorphic functions > >>>> with a single addition operation. The tables themselves are of > >>>> trivial size, since only one table exists per class, not per > >>>> object, although each object contains exactly one pointer to the > >>>> appropriate VT. The time overhead is O(1), and trivial, compared > >>>> to the massive productivity boost. In fact, anyone trying to > >>>> "roll your own" with C is much more likely to waste even more > >>>> time and space by using less optimal (or wrong!) one-off methods > >>>> compared to the finely honed algorithms in the C++ library. > ... > > > You are arguing over what I have disclosed in a hidden footnote in > > extreme detail. > > I was telling you, as an expert, in "extreme detail" why C++ is not a > "bloated" OO language - in either time or space. This is a discussion > group. If you have a counter to my explanation, then give it. No one > is going to go off reading vast amounts of off-group, most likely > irrelevant material. If there is a counter to my explanation in that > material, then YOU tell the readers what it is. Other than that, I > think every serious reader here can see the force of my explanation. > > Anyway, I write here for the serious enquirer, not for fools like you. > > And what use is a "HIDDEN" footnote??!! You are one seriously ill > puppy. Further nonsense from you will be ignored. But I am fair. If > you can offer a reasoned counter to my explanation above, I'll answer > it. > I think that Gohde knows nothing about OOP and C++. He can't run KDE 4 on his old junk therefore he complains... But he didn't tried KDE 5 which is not bloated at all. Actually qt5 is less heavy than gtk3, therefore authors of LXDE moved to qt5 instead of gtk3.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 00:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <199c0787-de88-43b7-8acf-56d14e2eb323@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #349625 |
On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 11:19:35 AM UTC+9, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:02:33 +1000 > Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> wrote: > > > On 12/04/16 12:50, John Gohde wrote: > > > On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:23:50 PM UTC-4, Ron House wrote: > > >> On 12/04/16 11:47, John Gohde wrote: > > >>> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 9:30:03 PM UTC-4, Ron House wrote: > > >>>> On 11/04/16 23:22, John Gohde wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Anybody who has ever studied the issue knows that OOPs > > >>>>> programming eats up tons of computer resources under the theory > > >>>>> that programmer time is more valuable than hardware. > > >>>> > > >>>> So wrong. Some OO languages such as Smalltalk use lookup tables, > > >>>> which are inherently slow. But C++ uses indexed despatch tables, > > >>>> called virtual tables, to find addresses of polymorphic functions > > >>>> with a single addition operation. The tables themselves are of > > >>>> trivial size, since only one table exists per class, not per > > >>>> object, although each object contains exactly one pointer to the > > >>>> appropriate VT. The time overhead is O(1), and trivial, compared > > >>>> to the massive productivity boost. In fact, anyone trying to > > >>>> "roll your own" with C is much more likely to waste even more > > >>>> time and space by using less optimal (or wrong!) one-off methods > > >>>> compared to the finely honed algorithms in the C++ library. > > ... > > > > > You are arguing over what I have disclosed in a hidden footnote in > > > extreme detail. > > > > I was telling you, as an expert, in "extreme detail" why C++ is not a > > "bloated" OO language - in either time or space. This is a discussion > > group. If you have a counter to my explanation, then give it. No one > > is going to go off reading vast amounts of off-group, most likely > > irrelevant material. If there is a counter to my explanation in that > > material, then YOU tell the readers what it is. Other than that, I > > think every serious reader here can see the force of my explanation. > > > > Anyway, I write here for the serious enquirer, not for fools like you. > > > > And what use is a "HIDDEN" footnote??!! You are one seriously ill > > puppy. Further nonsense from you will be ignored. But I am fair. If > > you can offer a reasoned counter to my explanation above, I'll answer > > it. > > > > I think that Gohde knows nothing about OOP and C++. He can't run KDE 4 > on his old junk therefore he complains... > But he didn't tried KDE 5 which is not bloated at all. > Actually qt5 is less heavy than gtk3, therefore authors of LXDE moved > to qt5 instead of gtk3. Even FreeBSD is adopting this Gem: https://wiki.freebsd.org/LXQt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 19:48 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <570E1600.5070901@smartchat.net.au> |
| In reply to | #349625 |
On 13/04/16 12:19, Melzzzzz wrote: > I think that Gohde knows nothing about OOP and C++. He can't run KDE 4 > on his old junk therefore he complains... > But he didn't tried KDE 5 which is not bloated at all. > Actually qt5 is less heavy than gtk3, therefore authors of LXDE moved > to qt5 instead of gtk3. Good point. I have light requirements and use Trinity. Works well. -- Ron House Building Peace: http://peacelegacy.org Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 04:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <e0d2bf96-dabf-4924-99df-94783284eafa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #349635 |
On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 5:48:51 AM UTC-4, Ron House wrote: > On 13/04/16 12:19, Melzzzzz wrote: > > > I think that Gohde knows nothing about OOP and C++. He can't run KDE 4 > > on his old junk therefore he complains... > > But he didn't tried KDE 5 which is not bloated at all. > > Actually qt5 is less heavy than gtk3, therefore authors of LXDE moved > > to qt5 instead of gtk3. > > Good point. I have light requirements and use Trinity. Works well. What a bunch of dumb fucks! I agree with Linus. Oop Sucks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 04:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Ignorant comments about C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <dn3d0bFq114U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #349453 |
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:23:47 +1000, Ron House wrote: > On 12/04/16 11:47, John Gohde wrote: >> So, show Moi where Linus Torvalds has said essentially the same thing >> on video. > > What has the validity of my detailed explanation about the workings of > C++ got to do with whether any other person has or has not said the same > thing? Nitwit. > >> Somehow, I think that anybody who can write machine code directly, like >> Linus can, would be all that interested in OOPs. > > That's right. He doesn't like it. He is emotionally opposed to it. But > nonetheless, not using it for the kernel was the right choice - even > though he is emotionally involved. But thanks for that attempt to > pretend I said the opposite of what I did - it proves clearly to all > that you are troll here. FYI for historical reference, <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643/ focus=57918> -- -v Kernel:4.6.0-rc2-sd Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2 Distro:Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web