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

Groups > comp.programming > #2482 > unrolled thread

linked list language

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  linked list language "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-11-14 19:23 -0500
    Re: linked list language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-15 01:30 +0000
      Re: linked list language "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-11-14 20:58 -0500
        Re: linked list language treetaxi <noreply@treetaxi.invalid> - 2012-12-02 22:22 -0700
          Re: linked list language "Aaron W.  Hsu" <arcfide@sacrideo.us> - 2012-12-03 01:53 -0500
      Re: linked list language "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-11-14 21:06 -0500

#2482 — linked list language

    Does anyone have an opinion on whether linked lists are easier to do in 
C or C++?

B

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2483

"Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> writes:

>     Does anyone have an opinion on whether linked lists are easier to do in 
> C or C++?

That's an odd question.  C++ has standard container types including a
list type, so in that sense it's easier in C++: there's nothing to do
other than use them.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2484

Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> writes:
>
>>     Does anyone have an opinion on whether linked lists are easier
>> to do in C or C++?
>
> That's an odd question.  C++ has standard container types including a
> list type, so in that sense it's easier in C++: there's nothing to do
> other than use them.

    I don't know what container types or list types mean. I was going to 
think of a second language after C and considered Perl. Whew. Too much for 
me. C++ is probably most C like.
    I think I frustrate alot of programmers on usenet because they're 
professionals. I'm a hobbyist and have to learn C as I go and algorithms 
forget it. What kind of programming can you do without them. I have to move 
at my own pace. But I'll never become a CS student professionally. I'll look 
up list container.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2575

On 11/14/2012 06:58 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>     Does anyone have an opinion on whether linked lists are easier
>>> to do in C or C++?
>>
>> That's an odd question.  C++ has standard container types including a
>> list type, so in that sense it's easier in C++: there's nothing to do
>> other than use them.
> 
>     I don't know what container types or list types mean. I was going to 
> think of a second language after C and considered Perl. Whew. Too much for 
> me. C++ is probably most C like.
>     I think I frustrate alot of programmers on usenet because they're 
> professionals. I'm a hobbyist and have to learn C as I go and algorithms 
> forget it. What kind of programming can you do without them. I have to move 
> at my own pace. But I'll never become a CS student professionally. I'll look 
> up list container.
> 
> Bill
> 
> 

C++ isn't "really" a second language, as knowledge of C is usually a
prerequisite to most C++ courses.

Basically the functions and subroutines of C become 'methods' of C++
objects which which restrict access and provide a separate namespace
through encapsulation.

So it's easier to knock out a quick C subroutine, and the code is more
efficient for real-time apps, but it's easier to re-use C++ code because
of its modular design.

Although it's been used for just about anything, I consider Perl as
basically a text-handling language.  It's the best tool I know of for
doing things like stripping html code and looking for keywords.  I used
it to write a utility that automatically read the used car ads every day
and filter out the ones I would be interested in.  I'd never even try
that in C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576

treetaxi wrote:

>>I think I frustrate alot of programmers on usenet because they're
>> professionals. I'm a hobbyist and have to learn C as I go and algorithms
>> forget it. What kind of programming can you do without them. I have to
>> move at my own pace. But I'll never become a CS student professionally.
>> I'll look up list container.

If you are a hobbyist programmer and are intrested in linked lists, you 
might find it very useful to read the "How to Design Programs" series and 
use the Racket programming language. For that matter, you could pick up The 
Scheme Programming Language reference and pick up a Scheme implementation. 
You could also go through "Structure and Interpretation of Computer 
Programs." Scheme is one of those languages that gives you a big benefit to 
learning it, even if you don't actually use it in your main work. I use Chez 
Scheme a lot, and you can get the interpreter (Petite) from 
http://www.scheme.com, which is the same place that you can find the TSPL 
book.

-- 
Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2485

"Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote in message 
news:0.d448978e18debb49713b.20121115013001GMT.871ufvhcva.fsf@bsb.me.uk...

> That's an odd question.  C++ has standard container types including a
> list type, so in that sense it's easier in C++: there's nothing to do
> other than use them.

    Ok I see. I know nothing about the STL. I understand namespaces. And 
left off years ago at classes.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web