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


Groups > comp.lang.c > #22561

Re: Design decisions

From Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Design decisions
Date 2012-06-23 10:21 +1200
Message-ID <a4k9f8FglmU2@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <js1968$26c$1@speranza.aioe.org> <87sjdn8gm0.fsf@gmail.com> <js26e1$ct5$1@speranza.aioe.org> <a4k3q3FglkU3@mid.individual.net> <js2pp5$t7c$1@speranza.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw


On 06/23/12 09:58 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 22/06/12 22:44, Ian Collins a écrit :
>> On 06/23/12 04:27 AM, jacob navia wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe, depends on what you have in mind. In any case the unwinding of
>>> the stack done by C++ is just that: stack unwinding and you can
>>> simulate that with a generic stack without any big problems. Of course
>>> it is a bit ofmore work for you but you do NOT pay for an
>>> enormous complexity increase!
>>
>> The complexity in both case will be equal.  In your case the complexity
>> has to be managed by the manually programmer, in the C++ case it is
>> managed automatically by the compiler.
>
> Sure, but that "aautomatic" managemengt by an incredibly complex
> compiler has a price in difficulty of learning, understanding and using
> all that machinery.

If you find

struct ManageSomething
{
   Something thing;

   ManageSomething( Something s ) : thing(s) {}
   ~ManageSomething() { release( thing ); }
};

difficult to understand, I'd be worried.

I guess at some time in the past, our distant ancestors found wheels 
complex, but they sure beat pushing things along the ground.  Developing 
technical solutions to repeating problems is what we do.

>> The complexity becomes really hard to manage manually when the jump
>> target is several layers up the call stack.
>>
>
> No, since it is conceptually simple: a stack. For each pointer that you
> need to free/release whatever you add an opcode and a pointer. You push
> that into the stack. It is very easy.

Easy, tedious, repetitive and error prone.  Isn't the normal 
programmer's reaction to a tedious, repetitive and error prone problem 
automation?

-- 
Ian Collins

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


Thread

Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-21 22:19 +0200
  Re: Design decisions Andrew Cooper <amc96@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-06-21 21:43 +0100
  Re: Design decisions "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-21 22:02 +0100
    Re: Design decisions Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 23:23 +0100
      Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-22 09:12 +0200
        Re: Design decisions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 19:44 +1200
          Re: Design decisions "Joe." <antelope3@news.net> - 2012-06-25 00:32 -0600
        Re: Design decisions gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 01:00 -0700
          Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-22 10:08 +0200
            Re: Design decisions Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 17:18 +0100
              Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-22 18:27 +0200
                Re: Design decisions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-23 08:44 +1200
                Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-22 23:58 +0200
                Re: Design decisions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-23 10:21 +1200
                Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-23 02:13 +0200
                Re: Design decisions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-23 12:59 +1200
                Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-23 11:03 +0200
                Re: Design decisions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-23 21:52 +1200
                Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-23 12:32 +0200
                Re: Design decisions Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 13:54 +0100
            Re: Design decisions "Joe." <antelope3@news.net> - 2012-06-25 00:36 -0600
          Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-22 10:42 +0200
            Re: Design decisions Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 17:18 +0100
            Re: Design decisions jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-24 18:32 +0200
    Re: Design decisions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-21 18:43 -0400
      Re: Design decisions "Joe." <antelope3@news.net> - 2012-06-25 00:40 -0600
    Re: Design decisions "Joe." <antelope3@news.net> - 2012-06-25 00:28 -0600
  Re: Design decisions "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-06-22 08:35 +0200
  Re: Design decisions Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-06-22 12:40 +0000
    Re: Design decisions gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 06:01 -0700
      Re: Design decisions Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-06-22 14:26 +0000
    Re: Design decisions Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-06-22 14:01 +0100
    Re: Design decisions David Resnick <lndresnick@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 06:13 -0700
  Re: Design decisions Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-06-22 19:05 +0200
  Re: Design decisions "Joe." <antelope3@news.net> - 2012-06-25 00:27 -0600

csiph-web