Quoth Ury Segal on Sun, Jul 23, 2000:
> Yes. Do you know what is a standard ?
Something that is widely implemented and followed, perhaps?
> Have you EVER been
> involved in standatrizing effort ?
No, sadly. You?
> Did you ever READ a standard?
Do RFCs or ISO standards qualify? In this case, yes.
> > > which is used by a VERY large amount of
> > > people.
> >
> > Same large amount of people who choose Windows and eat in
> > McDonald's.
>
> Oh - you see, those people makes the economy. People
> like you lives on another, imagenary world.
#ifdef OFFTOPIC
I enjoy it there. I prefer to live in an imaginary world and not
follow hordes. People tell me I need to know Windows to survive
in the real world. I don't know it and still survive. According
to the definition of these people, I live in an imaginary world.
The point being that:
1. I don't need to deal with things I don't want to if I can do
without it.
2. The fact that the majority eats at McDonald's, uses Windows,
or programs in C++ doesn't make any of these products good.
#undef OFFTOPIC
> > > The GNU compiler, g++, supports *_well_* 99.9%
> > > of the standard C++
> >
> > Some C++ professional say otherwise, but I'm not one, so I won't
> > comment on this.
>
> Give me one FUCKING "expert" that said that.
For some reason, I haven't saved the addresses of FUCKING
"experts", as you choose to define them. I didn't think it would
be useful for me, as I don't normally use C++.
> > C++ is an object-oriented programming language? Gimme a break.
>
> YOU do not define what is an OO language. The world
> aroud you, which you obviously Ignore, defined, long time
> ago, that C++ is an OO language.
Oh. The World. Right. So some of the people who know lots of
programming languages (not me) are parts of The World, and some
aren't. So you, dear, don't dare to define Operating System.
The World has defined DOS to be one.
> > Nothing. People wrote object oriented code in C long before C++
> > was born.
>
> On SUCH a small scale, that you cannot give me one
> example of your enougmous exagragations.
Well, one example (however, written long after C++ was born, so I
hope it qualifies nevertheless) is "inheritance" and type
recognition in the implementation of Soft Updates in recent
4.4BSD-based kernels. BTW, automatic type recognition is not in
C++ yet.
Lisp hackers claim that things like that are built into Lisp, but
I haven't learnt the language yet (I intend to do it one day), so
I'll say no more about it.
> > Object orientation is a function of design, not
> > language. You can write object-oriented assembly, and you can
> > write C++ with gotos.
>
> So fucking what ?
So fucking nothing.
> > So? You can't _really_ hide what's inside. You always open your
> > header files. Anyone can just insert "public:" into the header
> > file and do whatever they bloody want.
>
> Everybody can do whatever in whatsoever language.
Not entirely true, but nevermind.
> What is your point, or are you wasting our time ?
Yes, I'm wasting your collective time. My point being that C++
isn't worth its complexity, _and_ same things may be achieved in
C with not a lot of effort.
> > What about this: C is a small simple elegant language. It's
> > relatively easy to learn. There are lots of people who actually
> > know all of C by heart.
> >
> > C++ is a bloated pig which just grew into existance. It has
> > helluva lot of features. There are very few people who actually
> > know all of C++. Everybody knows some subset,
>
> You are right on this, but -
>
> >and the problem is
> > that everybody knows a different subset of the language.
>
> Tell me please, on what research, or ANYTHING, are you
> basic this idiotic sentense ?
Alright, the last "everybody" was wrong. To phrase it better:
People who know subsets of C++ often know different
subsets thereof.
And I based it on my personal experience. Some know templates
but don't know multiple inheritance, some know operator
overloading but have difficulties with "protected".
> > Yeah right. There was some programmer that reported that in his
> > experience C++ programs were almost always bigger and almost
> > always needed longer time to write than functionally equivalent C
> > programs.
>
> I wrote 100's of 1000's of lines in both C and C++, and
> for big projects, C++ kicks C every time.
In what respect? Are the programs smaller? Do you write C++
faster than C?
> Now THIS programmer tell you that.
Well, opinions differ.
> Who told you THIS stuff?
Some based on what other people told me (or wrote for the general
public), some on my experience.
> Do you know C++ at all ?
A subset. I have that nice brown book, _The C++ Reference
Manual_ by Stroustrup and someone whose name I can't recall ATM
(the book is not here right now), which I recommend to anyone who
insists on using that language. That's where I learnt most of
the C++ I know from.
Vadik.
--
It was state of the art, he said.
The art in this case was probably pottery.
-- Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, "Good Omens"
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
