Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #6077

Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad...

Show all headers | View raw

On 29/12/15 23:19, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 29/12/15 22:13, David Brown wrote:
>> On 29/12/15 21:31, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 26/12/15 00:54, Ramine wrote:
>>>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Your article says a lot more about your programming style than it does
>>> about either C or C++.
>>>
>>
>> While your post was technically correct, you are missing one critical
>> detail - Ramine is a write-only bot, and never reads anything that is
>> posted.
> 
> There is a very, very, very small body of evidence to the contrary.
> Practically microscopic, in fact, but nevertheless non-zero.

I had a little check on the posts from Ramine that are in my local
Thunderbird cache of this group - and I found two replies by him to
someone other than himself.  Both were to posts by you.  Over the past
year and a half, he has made 565 posts (about 10% of this group), with
/two/ of them indicating that he reads something here.

So your assessment is correct - there is a tiny, but non-zero, chance
that he will read these posts.

> 
>> He is also almost totally ignorant about C and C++ (I haven't
>> studied his Delphi code enough to guess his knowledge there), so
>> criticisms of his posts are usually obvious to everyone else already. If
>> you can squeeze in some tips that might be interesting to others, or at
>> least an entertaining Pythonesque insult, go for it - otherwise replying
>> to Ramine is fairly pointless.
> 
> In this case, the tips I thought might be interesting to others were:
> 
> 1) using namespace std; is so often a bad idea that I can't actually
> think of a good use for it. (Kaz was prompted to post a scenario in
> which the 'using namespace' construct could be useful, so that's a
> positive outcome.)

That's the one that I thought was obvious.  Some people will disagree
that it is a bad idea, but I can't imagine there are many C++ who
haven't heard this already.  And certainly it's an issue for
comp.lang.c++ rather than comp.programming.

> 
> 2) mixing of signed and unsigned expressions is very often a sign that
> the program hasn't been thought through properly. This, too, is (I
> think) a discussion that might also turn out to be profitable, despite
> its origins.
> 

Perhaps that could usefully be discussed here, since it is an issue that
can affect many languages.

I am always happy to see poor initial posts turned into interesting
threads - I just didn't see much scope for it here.

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-29 20:31 +0000
  Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-12-29 21:20 +0000
  Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-29 23:13 +0100
    Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-29 22:19 +0000
      Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 09:56 +0100
        Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 13:28 +0000
          Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 14:55 +0100
            Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 16:32 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 18:17 +0100
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:01 +0000
          Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 15:48 +0000
            Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 16:35 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 18:19 +0100
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 17:39 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:26 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-12-30 18:32 +0100
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:55 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:15 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 22:00 +0000
      Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-31 10:16 +1300

csiph-web