DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 277

Thread: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

  1. #16
    Jonathan Allen Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    > Ok, so having to tell whether or not a function is a function or a sub
    routine
    > is useful. The return type should tell.


    A function, by definition, returns something. Right there, you have already
    lost. But we will ignore it anyways and use your version.

    Consider what you are saying...
    "a function is a function or a sub routine"

    Since your definition is recursive, lets read it like a programmer would...
    "a function is a function or a sub routine or a sub routine or a sub
    routine or a sub routine or a sub routine or a sub routine or a sub routine
    or a sub routine or a sub routine or a sub routine or a sub routine or a sub
    routine or a sub routine or a sub routine or a sub routine or a sub routine
    or a sub routine or a sub routine"

    Kind of gives one a headache.

    ---------

    With that is settled, lets exam the rest of your claim.

    You have to check the return type of the method to determine if it
    returns something.

    Do you taste the food on your plate to determine if there is any food on
    your plate? If not, how can you check the return type to determine if
    something is returned?

    ----------------------

    Besides, what if we don't know the return type? There are cases where
    literally anything could be returned, which we indicate by not specifying a
    return type.

    --
    Jonathan Allen


    "Ted" <TTarney@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3b599f20$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > "Jeff Johnson" <johnsonjs@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >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!!!

    >
    > That's right. It is less readable to you, don't you forget that.
    >
    > >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.

    >
    > BS. That is not true. The consensus here is "C++ is too **** hard". You
    > have already proved that point by this post.
    >
    > >However I must point out that you do not attempt to refute my case that

    > C++
    > >is in fact annoyingly esoteric.

    >
    > Esoteric in the fact that you have to know what you're doing?
    >
    > >I do not claim to be an expert in C++, nor do I claim that VB is free of
    > >annoyances-- but I DO claim that the difference between "x = ++Z" and "X
    > >= z++" is obnoxious!!!

    >
    > This is control my man. You have the option of overloading ++ for types
    > so that you can control how the increment and decrements are done. You

    even
    > have the choice of InterlockedIncrement and Decrement for threaded

    versions.
    > Hmm, does VB have this sort of control and power. Not knowing C++, you
    > have no clue what you are missing in VB. The bad thing about knowing C++
    > first(if you did know it, unlike those on this group who will come back

    with
    > why they left C++ for VB Land. Face it you left because you couldn't hang)
    > is going to VB makes you realize how much control and power you have in

    C++
    > and lack in VB. So you not knowing C++ leaves you with no authority to say
    > what is "annoyingly esoteric" about C++.
    >
    > >I presently write in VBA-- and we all know that isn't REAL

    programming....)
    >
    > Right. You said it not me.
    >
    > Now on to this garbage(rubbish if you're from the UK).
    >
    > >>1) Nested curly brackets-- pointless and ugly

    > Ok, so having to tell whether or not a function is a function or a sub

    routine
    > is useful. The return type should tell.
    >
    > >>2) Use of "<<", "::", "#", ";", "!=" -- all bizarre shorthand

    > So having the ability to overload these operators is bizarre? I've said
    > it before if you cannot understand semi colons you deserve VB and vice

    versa.
    >
    > >>3) What language does the word "cout" come from??? Is that French?

    Dutch?
    > Irish??
    > Option Explicit, What the **** is that?
    >
    > >>4) The C++ language does not provide a matrix type with an inversion

    >>operator

    > or a string type with a concatenation operator.
    > That's what classes are for. Do you want everything done for you. Write
    > your own. The problem with you is that you get it done by someone else and
    > you just never know what you are getting. In C++ even though the STL is
    > there, there are still times when its lack of performance and efficiency
    > doesn't warrant its use. As for the string, well you show your ignorance
    > once again. std::string, CString , CComBSTR, etc. There are many out

    there.
    >
    > >>5) The downside of the backward compatabilty of the C languages is that
    > >>the language has never been cleaned up. We are stuck with mediocre

    >>decisions

    > made a LONG time ago....
    > What do you mean WE? Lets see, C++, standards committee, VB, MS. Clean
    > up what? The committee is there to see to the good of the language not to
    > some sniveling(yes VB devs) crybaby who doesn't like the how increment and
    > decrement are implemented. So, once again you show your ignorance. The
    > committee works round the clock.
    >
    > >>6) The typical line of C++ code expresses a lot more than the average

    >>line

    > of Basic. This terseness makes the language opaque.
    > Once again, you want it all done for you.
    >
    > >>7) The comment system is also another example of pointless shorthand.

    > I
    > >>say, bring back the REM statement!!!

    > You my friend are a dumbass.
    >
    > >>8) C was not designed with numerical computation in mind.

    > VB was? Boy VB is used in all types of real time environments.
    >
    > Sorry Jeff, you are clueless when it comes to C++. You point out all of
    > these knitpicky things that you don't like, well as C++ devs, you work

    with
    > constructs provided you don't cry to MS and ask for more to be done to

    make
    > your life easier.
    >
    >




  2. #17
    Jonathan Allen Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    > 2) Shortcomings of VB are irrelevant.

    I would say they are very relevant. They show how VB.Net has overcome some
    of the limitations and poor decisions of VB, just as VB did to QBasic and
    QBasic did to GW-Basic.

    C++, on the other hand, overcame very little of C's limitations. For the
    most part it just added preprocessor syntax to the existing framework.

    --
    Jonathan Allen


    "Jeff Johnson" <johnsonjs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3b5a57e8$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > Ted--
    >
    > The vehemence of your response over this issue is rather disturbing. Do
    > you honestly think that you can prove me wrong by being rude?
    >
    > 1) Personal attacks against me are irrelevant to the validity of my

    assertions.
    >
    > 2) Shortcomings of VB are irrelevant.
    > 3) The fact that C++ is powerful and flexible is irrelevant to the

    validity
    > of my assertions. In fact... I point out myself that this low level TERSE
    > backward compatable nature of C++ is brought to us AT THE EXPENSE OF

    READABILITY.
    > I am not commenting on the relative value of C++ power and control. I'm
    > talking about the price of it.
    >
    >
    > Snip:
    >
    > >>>6) The typical line of C++ code expresses a lot more than the average
    > >>>line

    > >of Basic. This terseness makes the language opaque.
    > >Once again, you want it all done for you.

    >
    > Ted. You cannot say that terseness makes the language readable, easy to
    > maintain, and easy to pickup, so you insinuate that I am a lazy. Wow.
    >
    >
    > So, Ted, tell me... who do you think came up with a better system of

    notation
    > for the Calculus: Newton or Leibniz?
    >
    >




  3. #18
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric


    "Jeff Peil" <jpeil@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:3b5b2934$1@news.devx.com...

    > Kunle,
    >
    > Sure it is,
    >
    > This isn't the place to discuss it, but if you care to venture over to
    > comp.std.c++ and try to argue that the standard C++ library is not a part

    of
    > the language, I'd be happy to head over with you, though I think you'll

    find
    > few people willing to take your side (based on previous cases where the
    > subject has come up.)
    >
    > The library is clearly described inside ISO 14882-1998 "Programming
    > Languages -- C++" and it is not described as seperate from the language.


    <excerpt source="The C++ Programming Language 3rd Edition Chpt 3">
    No significant program is written in just a bare
    programming language. First, a set of supporting
    libraries are developed. These then form the basis
    for further work.
    Continuing Chapter 2, this chapter gives a quick
    tour of key library facilities to give you an idea
    what can be done using C++ and its standard library.
    </excerpt>

    Note the differentiation between C++ and it's standard library in the last
    sentence.

    Of course, it's just nitpicking...... ;-)

    Kunle



  4. #19
    Jeff Johnson Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric


    Please feel free to interrupt more often.



    "David Kroll" <dgkroll@ihatespam.hotmail.spamsucks.com> wrote:

    >Well, that's just my two cents on this whole subject. I hope I didn't interrupt
    >the flow of the usual "X is great, Y sucks" back-and-forth. Free free to
    >continue. I'll get out of your way now!



  5. #20
    Andy Chevin Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    > C++, on the other hand, overcame very little of C's limitations. For the
    > most part it just added preprocessor syntax to the existing framework.


    Framework?



  6. #21
    Jonathan Allen Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    > Framework?

    Yes framework. The word is generic enough to be applied to whatever I feel
    like applying it to.

    --
    Jonathan Allen


    "Andy Chevin" <yoshimura.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3b5b69d4@news.devx.com...
    > > C++, on the other hand, overcame very little of C's limitations. For the
    > > most part it just added preprocessor syntax to the existing framework.

    >
    > Framework?
    >
    >




  7. #22
    Jeff Peil Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric


    "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in
    message news:3b5b4052$1@news.devx.com...
    > Note the differentiation between C++ and it's standard library in the last
    > sentence.
    >
    > Of course, it's just nitpicking...... ;-)


    Of course that source is not the standard.

    You could have gone with 1.5/1 and 1.5/2 from the standard for a better
    position to argue from, however I hold to my position that in a broad sense
    the standard C++ library is a part of the language, but as I said before I
    would not consider it a part of the core.

    In any case, this is getting woefully off-topic for this group.



  8. #23
    Andy Chevin Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    > > Framework?
    >
    > Yes framework. The word is generic enough to be applied to whatever I feel
    > like applying it to.


    And in the context of your post, vague enough that it wasn't clear what you
    meant.




  9. #24
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric


    "David Kroll" <dgkroll@ihatespam.hotmail.spamsucks.com> wrote:
    >
    >As someone who has done programming in both C++ and VB, I've been very amused
    >by this thread. It seems like it can be summed up like this:
    >
    >VB Programmer: VB rules, C++ sucks
    >
    >C++ Programmer: C++ rules, VB sucks
    >
    >VB Programmer: No, you are wrong. VB rules, C++ sucks.
    >
    >C++ Programmer: I beg your pardon. C++ rules, VB sucks.
    >
    >[repeat, ad infinitum]
    >


    Welcome to the club. It seems like every discussion around here, no matter
    how well it starts off, if you peel back the onion layers, amounts to "it
    sucks" "it rules"...

    -Rob

  10. #25
    Kevin Moore Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric


    After reading this news group for the last year or so, I am reminded of an
    infamous beer commercial:

    Tastes Great ...
    Less Filling ...

    Cheers

    Kevin

    "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote:
    >
    >"David Kroll" <dgkroll@ihatespam.hotmail.spamsucks.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>As someone who has done programming in both C++ and VB, I've been very

    amused
    >>by this thread. It seems like it can be summed up like this:
    >>
    >>VB Programmer: VB rules, C++ sucks
    >>
    >>C++ Programmer: C++ rules, VB sucks
    >>
    >>VB Programmer: No, you are wrong. VB rules, C++ sucks.
    >>
    >>C++ Programmer: I beg your pardon. C++ rules, VB sucks.
    >>
    >>[repeat, ad infinitum]
    >>

    >
    >Welcome to the club. It seems like every discussion around here, no matter
    >how well it starts off, if you peel back the onion layers, amounts to "it
    >sucks" "it rules"...
    >
    >-Rob



  11. #26
    Jay King Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    I want a c++ to give me an argument for why a ; after everyline is a good
    idea.... C'mon someone argue this..... I REALLY want to hear it.



  12. #27
    Phil Weber Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    > I want a C++ [developer] to give me an argument
    > for why a ; after every line is a good idea.


    Jay: It allows you to easily split a statement across multiple lines. Would
    you rather have to enter a single line-termination character ( ; ) at the
    end of each line, or a line-continuation character ( _ ) at every break, as
    required in VB? C-based languages also allow you to include comments within
    a single line, e.g.:

    function myFunc (
    param1, // comment for this param
    param2, // comment for this param
    param3, // comment for this param
    param4) // comment for this param

    ---
    Phil Weber



  13. #28
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    On 22 Jul 2001 11:56:20 -0700, "David Kroll"
    <dgkroll@ihatespam.hotmail.spamsucks.com> wrote:

    >Well, that's just my two cents on this whole subject. I hope I didn't interrupt
    >the flow of the usual "X is great, Y sucks" back-and-forth. Free free to
    >continue. I'll get out of your way now!


    Phew! Thank goodness for that! I was beginning to get worried. Oh, and
    you forgot to mention that C++ sucks. <g>

    MM

  14. #29
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 04:20:42 -0700, "Phil Weber" <pweber@devx.com>
    wrote:

    > function myFunc (
    > param1, // comment for this param
    > param2, // comment for this param
    > param3, // comment for this param
    > param4) // comment for this param
    >


    Function myFunc ( _
    param1, _ ' comment for this param
    param2, _ ' comment for this param
    param3, _ ' comment for this param
    param4) ' comment for this param

    End Function

    In other words, you can't at present type anything after the line
    continuation character. My mod: Allow a comment to be typed after a
    line continuation character. Oh, and don't put an arbitrary limit on
    the number of line continuation characters. I want to see this in
    proper VB7, Dave, okay?

    MM

  15. #30
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Why C++ is Annoyingly Esoteric

    On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 05:53:43 -0400, "Jay King" <pggoldpg@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >I want a c++ to give me an argument for why a ; after everyline is a good
    >idea...


    I can only assume you never read a book on programming language parsers;
    even english has a line terminator ya know.

    Every programming language has its characteristics. Some use BEGIN END,
    some use ((( ))) (or ] if you're lucky <g>), and some use ';' ... what's
    the big deal?


    ---
    Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

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