Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C++23 better?
54 views
Skip to first unread message
gdo...@gmail.com
Jul 5, 2022, 8:20:58 PM7/5/22
to
Hm, perhaps having legacy code should be forced to change especially if new standards plug old problems. We all need jobs, well some of us do and recoding the old stuff, we are talking about job security till death.
I do now understand some of the choices made be swift language creators. Except one, why not call a constant a const instead of the let, let just seems so corny (basic) good grief.
Too many integer types in c++, just too many for 2023, int , double, 64 bits, let’s move on. Plenty of memory, plenty on space in the chips as we get to one nm.
Until the 128 bit processors show up.
🤔🙂😎😇
I do now understand some of the choices made be swift language creators. Except one, why not call a constant a const instead of the let, let just seems so corny (basic) good grief.
Too many integer types in c++, just too many for 2023, int , double, 64 bits, let’s move on. Plenty of memory, plenty on space in the chips as we get to one nm.
Until the 128 bit processors show up.
🤔🙂😎😇
gdo...@gmail.com
Jul 5, 2022, 10:06:10 PM7/5/22
to
> C++’s built-in integer types: unsigned long, long, unsigned int, int, unsigned short, short,char,unsigned char,signed char,bool C++11’s additions: unsigned long long and long long
> 🤔🙂😎😇
Paavo Helde
Jul 6, 2022, 2:51:27 AM7/6/22
to
06.07.2022 05:06 gdo...@gmail.com kirjutas:
>
>> C++’s built-in integer types: unsigned long, long, unsigned int, int, unsigned short, short,char,unsigned char,signed char,bool C++11’s additions: unsigned long long and long long
>> 🤔🙂😎😇
You are forgetting some: wchar_t, char8_t, char16_t, char32_t.
>
>> C++’s built-in integer types: unsigned long, long, unsigned int, int, unsigned short, short,char,unsigned char,signed char,bool C++11’s additions: unsigned long long and long long
>> 🤔🙂😎😇
Curiously enough, the standard first says that bool and char... types do
not belong under signed integer nor unsigned integer types, but all
these collectively belong into "integral types". Then it goes on and
says this is the same as "integer types".
Welcome the the beautiful C++ world of counting angels on a pinhead!
Alf P. Steinbach
Jul 6, 2022, 4:43:00 AM7/6/22
to
because an angel was pure intellect of zero size. He also thought the
Earth was the center of the universe and that Pascal was wrong about the
existence of vacuum; no no, no matter what your experiments show,
Pascal, nature abhors a vacuum.
Not sure if he adopted Aristotle's stance that an arrow could not move
in vacuum because there was no air that it could push away so that it
moved around to behind it for pushing it forward.
The greatest philosophers these, and that makes me wonder about the
quality of the less than greatest.
But perhaps Descartes and Pascal simply meant different concepts when
they said "vacuum", like an absence of everything versus absence of air.
I don't think they ever stopped and asked the other, what /exactly/ do
you mean when you say "vacuum"? Perhaps they wouldn't have disagreed so
strongly if they both had to adhere to some word list's definition.
And perhaps a lot of discussion and argument could have been avoided
with more clear terminology for C++, e.g. "call", of constructors. The
old meme that one cannot "call" constructors is still being passed
around and used as advice to beginners. There is no good defense against
that kind of irrationality that like religion ends up sabotaging minds.
- Alf
jak
Jul 6, 2022, 5:04:08 AM7/6/22
to
Il 06/07/2022 10:42, Alf P. Steinbach ha scritto:
> Descartes concluded that you could fit an infinite number of them,
> because an angel was pure intellect of zero size. He also thought the
> Earth was the center of the universe and that Pascal was wrong about the
> existence of vacuum; no no, no matter what your experiments show,
> Pascal, nature abhors a vacuum.
>
> Not sure if he adopted Aristotle's stance that an arrow could not move
> in vacuum because there was no air that it could push away so that it
> moved around to behind it for pushing it forward.
>
> The greatest philosophers these, and that makes me wonder about the
> quality of the less than greatest.
>
> But perhaps Descartes and Pascal simply meant different concepts when
> they said "vacuum", like an absence of everything versus absence of air.
> I don't think they ever stopped and asked the other, what /exactly/ do
> you mean when you say "vacuum"? Perhaps they wouldn't have disagreed so
> strongly if they both had to adhere to some word list's definition.
>
> And perhaps a lot of discussion and argument could have been avoided
> with more clear terminology for C++, e.g. "call", of constructors. The
> old meme that one cannot "call" constructors is still being passed
> around and used as advice to beginners. There is no good defense against
> that kind of irrationality that like religion ends up sabotaging minds.
This is because the manuals are full of ambiguity that allow too much
> Descartes concluded that you could fit an infinite number of them,
> because an angel was pure intellect of zero size. He also thought the
> Earth was the center of the universe and that Pascal was wrong about the
> existence of vacuum; no no, no matter what your experiments show,
> Pascal, nature abhors a vacuum.
>
> Not sure if he adopted Aristotle's stance that an arrow could not move
> in vacuum because there was no air that it could push away so that it
> moved around to behind it for pushing it forward.
>
> The greatest philosophers these, and that makes me wonder about the
> quality of the less than greatest.
>
> But perhaps Descartes and Pascal simply meant different concepts when
> they said "vacuum", like an absence of everything versus absence of air.
> I don't think they ever stopped and asked the other, what /exactly/ do
> you mean when you say "vacuum"? Perhaps they wouldn't have disagreed so
> strongly if they both had to adhere to some word list's definition.
>
> And perhaps a lot of discussion and argument could have been avoided
> with more clear terminology for C++, e.g. "call", of constructors. The
> old meme that one cannot "call" constructors is still being passed
> around and used as advice to beginners. There is no good defense against
> that kind of irrationality that like religion ends up sabotaging minds.
interpretation. This is the reason why infinite threads begin to discuss
about sex of angels (nothingness).
Juha Nieminen
Jul 6, 2022, 5:12:24 AM7/6/22
to
gdo...@gmail.com <gdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Too many integer types in c++, just too many for 2023, int , double, 64 bits, let???s move on. Plenty of memory, plenty on space in the chips as we get to one nm.
Yeah, plenty of memory... until you need to use a billion 8-bit or 16-bit integers
in an array. Then you'll be glad you have the option.
If you don't like having so many options for integers, go program in JavaScript.
> Too many integer types in c++, just too many for 2023, int , double, 64 bits, let???s move on. Plenty of memory, plenty on space in the chips as we get to one nm.
Yeah, plenty of memory... until you need to use a billion 8-bit or 16-bit integers
in an array. Then you'll be glad you have the option.
If you don't like having so many options for integers, go program in JavaScript.
jak
Jul 6, 2022, 5:26:53 AM7/6/22
to
language would have died dozens of years ago
Bo Persson
Jul 6, 2022, 8:07:26 AM7/6/22
to
Amazing what we can discover here.
gdo...@gmail.com
Jul 6, 2022, 8:27:30 AM7/6/22
to
Java terrible idea, the cobol of modern language.
Why invest in new standards for an old language if you are not going to be much more concise.
Or much less concise.
But the idea that there are new features in those other bands of kitchen sink, well, we have to throw that in ours it is not necessary. Are lambdas really a must have? I’m just asking.
What newbies to love c++ , get rid pointers and or change the notation for it, lol. Ok I know you don’t about the newbies, but this is how dead language must have started
🧐
Why invest in new standards for an old language if you are not going to be much more concise.
Or much less concise.
But the idea that there are new features in those other bands of kitchen sink, well, we have to throw that in ours it is not necessary. Are lambdas really a must have? I’m just asking.
What newbies to love c++ , get rid pointers and or change the notation for it, lol. Ok I know you don’t about the newbies, but this is how dead language must have started
🧐
jak
Jul 6, 2022, 8:28:15 AM7/6/22
to
Paul N
Jul 6, 2022, 11:45:30 AM7/6/22
to
On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 9:43:00 AM UTC+1, alf.p.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> And perhaps a lot of discussion and argument could have been avoided
> with more clear terminology for C++, e.g. "call", of constructors. The
> old meme that one cannot "call" constructors is still being passed
> around and used as advice to beginners. There is no good defense against
> that kind of irrationality that like religion ends up sabotaging minds.
I thought that "one cannot call constructors" wasn't irrational, it's just out of date now. See https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/ctors#init-methods in the FAQ.
> And perhaps a lot of discussion and argument could have been avoided
> with more clear terminology for C++, e.g. "call", of constructors. The
> old meme that one cannot "call" constructors is still being passed
> around and used as advice to beginners. There is no good defense against
> that kind of irrationality that like religion ends up sabotaging minds.
0 new messages