DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 271 to 277 of 277

Thread: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

  1. #271
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    On 28 Sep 2001 15:04:12 -0700, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
    wrote:

    >glad to hear that, at least. Though i'm not sure what the connection is to
    >salami slicing


    In the sense that no matter how much you cut off the sausage factory
    is always churning out more salami. Take an object model and you can
    forever create instances from its objects without needing to know
    anything about the underlying classes.

    MM

  2. #272
    L.Mar Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric


    "Jeff Johnson" <johnsonjs@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >Pardon me clyde...
    >
    >I didn't intend to Bash C or start a fight-- but my intention is merely

    to
    >illustrate why C is less readable to me. Although I do not know C, I do
    >believe I'm qualified to point out the things that make it hard for ME to
    >understand it!!!
    >
    >I am not making an assertion that C++ stinks. In fact-- I'm considering
    >writing a General Ledger system in it. I believe that the consensus on

    this
    >newsgroup is that C++ is the most versatile and stable language around.

    Old dear. I hope you are going to do that in C and NOT C++ as I am afraid
    the drum of rope in C++ is too much to hang yourself at every corner. C is
    a lot less tricky -- Read Exceptional C++ to convince yourself.

    Judging from your remarks regarding C++ or C as a language, I doubt you have
    much experience in languages -- both of human kind and computer. All the
    issues you raised show complete immaturity. Like the other gentlemen said,
    learn the language before opening your mouth to make everyone laughs.

    This is like the Russian criticising the French's writing is unreadable and
    silly or vice versa.

    Put some effort in and learn the language. Each language has its own idiosyncrasy
    -- even English has it.

    If you want to understand the statement "most versatile and stable language
    around", you need to do a lot more reading. Learning C++ is not enough. If
    you use C++ as a better C you could mess up a lot more.

    If you find it hard don't use it. You can write a general ledger in any languages.

  3. #273
    Kathleen Dollard Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    Jonathan,

    > I think that would depend on the age group of the class. If it was

    children,
    > I would want to take my time just teaching them variables and such.


    Don't know what you have in mind when you say "children". I know with my 14
    year old I only have the first little bit when he listens to me. Once he
    figures out how to do it himself, he doesn't listen until he hits a wall
    (true of any endeavor, not just programming, hopefully not driving). I fully
    trust that he would learn how to turn off Option Strict or Option Explicit
    without my help. No such faith that he would learn the importance of turning
    them on.

    Short version, with my kids and programming, I don't try to teach. I just
    face them the right direction and hope they don't turn to the dark side. One
    of the few reasons <vbg> I am glad that his rebellious youth leads him to do
    C# rather than VB.NET, so he is learning these good practices without
    discussion.

    --
    Kathleen
    (MS-MVP)
    Reply in the newsgroup so everyone can benefit
    --



  4. #274
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric


    "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    >Hi Rob --
    >
    >> Or use Long values for window Handles. Both of which will prove to be

    very
    >> bad practice when dealing with moving onto 64-bit Windows.

    >
    >Yowsa. Yeah, I suppose that migration will catch more than a few folks

    with their
    >pants down. All the good stuff aside (yeah, I said that <g>), it just astounds

    me
    >that *anyone* would consider it prudent to alter the definition of a fundamental
    >datatype. What the **** kind of drugs would it take, for that to be considered

    not
    >only okay, but wise?


    Well, to a certain degree, VB4-6 fell under the protection of COM, where
    foundation data types were immutable (also had to do with cross-platform
    conformity as well). However, I don't think you'll get more than 40-60 support
    for either side of the argument on this topic. There are valid reasons for
    both changing it and keeping it the same. I suppose it's one of those cases
    where you won't make everyone happy regardless of which road you take.
    Personally, I like the IntXX notation. At least that way, you know exactly
    what you're getting.

    >> But, as Zane said, where the **** have ya been?

    >
    >Road trip! Woke up one morning at the base of Devil's Tower. Camped alongside

    Lake
    >Superior the night of a major midnight thunderboomer! Good therapy. Highly
    >recommended. :-)
    >


    Sounds great
    We've been having quite a few night storms in FL recently. Amazing light
    show, i just wouldn't want to be caught out under it though!

    -Rob

  5. #275
    Gary Nelson Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    Zane,

    > No I didn't miss it, but I question how many VB applications are really
    > sensitive to making a long longer.


    Any that write and read longs to a binary file.

    Gary



  6. #276
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    Hi Rob --

    > Well, to a certain degree, VB4-6 fell under the protection of COM, where
    > foundation data types were immutable (also had to do with cross-platform
    > conformity as well). However, I don't think you'll get more than 40-60 support
    > for either side of the argument on this topic. There are valid reasons for
    > both changing it and keeping it the same.


    I disagree. There are valid reasons to *want* to change the number of bits in a
    datatype, but none for actually doing so. It's a contract.

    > I suppose it's one of those cases
    > where you won't make everyone happy regardless of which road you take.
    > Personally, I like the IntXX notation. At least that way, you know exactly
    > what you're getting.


    I like IntXX, as well! They should've just made these default, left the old ones
    alone, and told everyone to "move along."

    > >> But, as Zane said, where the **** have ya been?

    > >
    > >Road trip! Woke up one morning at the base of Devil's Tower. Camped alongside
    > >Lake Superior the night of a major midnight thunderboomer! Good therapy. Highly
    > >recommended. :-)

    >
    > Sounds great
    > We've been having quite a few night storms in FL recently. Amazing light
    > show, i just wouldn't want to be caught out under it though!


    Ah, well, you're used to that, then. Out here, lightening is a spectator event.
    Pretty **** rare.

    Later... Karl
    --
    http://www.mvps.org/vb



  7. #277
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    Yeah, I answered that too quick, too. Basically, *anything* that uses the API, too.
    --
    http://www.mvps.org/vb


    "Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
    news:3bb515bc@news.devx.com...
    > "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote in message

    <news:3bb4e63e@news.devx.com>...
    >
    > > Hi Zane --
    > >
    > > > >Glad to see that you didn't miss the point...
    > > >
    > > > No I didn't miss it,

    > >
    > > Of course, I knew you wouldn't. <g>
    > >
    > > > but I question how many VB applications are really
    > > > sensitive to making a long longer.

    > >
    > > I suppose, principally perhaps, only those that make calls to RtlMoveMemory.

    >
    > Or anything doing extensive bit-twiddling. Or working with binary files
    > written by some other language, such as VB Classic. Databases? Sure,
    > using the Int32 and Int64 types might work for now, until the debut of
    > Win128.NET, which might require that some things, but not others, change
    > to Int128 or Diggler or whatever. C's typedef is starting to look good!
    >
    > --
    > Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Sign the Check! <http://www.xenu.net/>
    > WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
    > because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
    >
    >



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center