Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: a style question: |
| Date | 2015-08-31 18:40 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <ms23eh$ubu$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <6e9323cb-1dff-4bff-b19a-d4b1da735ffb@googlegroups.com> <ms1bf1$peo$1@dont-email.me> <87zj17tzq5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <ms1m9d$3rs$1@dont-email.me> <87twrftsuw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
On 31/08/2015 15:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 31/08/2015 13:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> I.e. what is, in your view, the proper way to write that? >> >> I like using keywords to specify exactly what is being done. Perhaps >> not as long-winded as this, but along these lines: >> >> define template ...... >> instantiate template .... >> >> Then there is no excuse for not knowing what is happening. (Better >> than trying to infer what is being done from a mess of punctuation and >> syntax.) > > But you did not show an equivalent, so of course you can imply that it > can be simpler. Show, in your language, the instantiation of a generic > type with two parameters -- one a non-standard real type and the other a > constant value. I would have to fully understand what it means, and unfortunately I don't. I guess it's some sort of specialisation, something like a C macro, but more ambitious. But I'm not a fan of macros either! (I suppose there's nothing to stop the C++ writer from mixing in macros here as well, just to make the code even more challenging.) > The simplest syntax is likely to be very similar to > C++, but do show how much better you can make it. Also, you can't take a feature out of context like this and demand the equivalent in another language. I've chosen to deal with it by not having the feature. In that case there /is/ no syntax; what can be simpler?! If someone had the job of translating a program to Pascal, say, which do you think they would prefer to work from: C++, or my language that doesn't have any hairy features? >> While my dynamic language doesn't have templates; it doesn't really >> need them as you effectively get generics for free. > > No, you get them at a price, but you don't show the code, so I have no > idea what the price is. It may be that the type can't even be > specified. I can't tell yet. What type is being specified? See, I still don't know what the code is supposed to be doing! Does BezierPathSimple<real_32_t, GREEN> expand to a type definition? And no, with a dynamic language, the type isn't specified and isn't needed when doing generics. You don't even thing about it (so I was using generics, polymorphism and all that in the 1980s, and didn't even know). So there is no cost in terms of complicated syntax and debugging. There might be a cost in performance, if it all has to be sorted out at runtime. But that also depends on the implementation; I think it's more worthwhile getting interpreted languages up to speed, than devising more and more complicated compiled ones. >> Neither of these are as offensive to me as typical C++ code is. > > Yes, I know that. I'm just pointing out how odd that criterion is in > such a technical field. In your opinion, which is the more elegant language: Algol68, Haskell or whatever it was, or C++? Be honest! Even in a technical area, there must be a limit to how unwieldy, unfriendly, long-winded and ugly a syntax can be before people start to complain. Don't forget that a HLL is supposed to allow you to effortlessly write beautiful, clear code compared with assembly. Then you look at C++ and realise something has gone badly wrong! -- Bartc
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
a style question: G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 02:30 -0700
Re: a style question: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-31 21:40 +1200
Re: a style question: jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-31 09:52 +0000
Re: a style question: Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 03:24 -0700
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-31 11:50 +0100
Re: a style question: Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-31 13:21 +0100
Re: a style question: Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 05:41 -0700
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-31 14:55 +0100
Re: a style question: Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-31 15:50 +0100
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-31 18:40 +0100
Re: a style question: Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-31 17:46 +0200
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-31 17:27 +0100
Re: a style question: Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-31 18:42 +0200
Re: a style question: Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-08-31 17:41 +0000
Re: a style question: Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 15:33 -0700
Re: a style question: Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-01 08:34 +0000
Re: a style question: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-01 07:40 +1200
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-31 21:36 +0100
Re: a style question: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-01 08:51 +1200
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-31 22:37 +0100
Re: a style question: Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 15:24 -0700
Re: a style question: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-02 19:37 +1200
Re: a style question: jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-31 23:33 +0000
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 01:13 +0100
Re: a style question: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-01 18:21 +1200
Re: a style question: jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-09-01 15:23 +0000
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 18:06 +0100
Re: a style question: Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-01 20:39 +0000
Re: a style question: jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-09-01 20:45 +0000
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 22:53 +0100
Re: a style question: Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 17:51 -0700
csiph-web