C++ stuff I can't talk about here
Tony
time (I'm letting the mentioned latterS off the hook)) don't get it. They
blindly accept the C++ object model (read, thery're "virtually blindsided"),
as it lacks practical substance. Theory is nice, and everyone has one (did I
say that?), but the C++ object model theory is a pile.
I'm gonna stop with that cuz it's such a BIGGIE. I could have made the
subject: "The C++ object model sucks!".
All comments welcomed.
kwikius
Sounds Way Cooooool! Tony...
but I think it needs a little more Detail filling in...
so we can figure ....
WTF YOURE ON ABOUT MAN !!!! ?
regards
Andy Little
SG
From what I know you're only considering different "object models" for
your own programming language design. You should add a little more
content that qualifies as a good basis for a discussion and move the
thread to comp.lang.misc or something. In this group with these kinds
of posts of yours, frankly, you just look like a troll to me.
Cheers!
SG
Christof Donat
> Well there's the object model: "C++ers" (circa 2009, not language
> invention time (I'm letting the mentioned latterS off the hook)) don't
> get it.
Ah. I guess that is why you don't want to be more explicit here. The C++
people might become depressed and jump out of the window as soon as they
get blinded looking at the sun of your bright light.
> They blindly accept the C++ object model (read, thery're
> "virtually blindsided"), as it lacks practical substance.
I guess that the lack of practical substance is the reason why so many
applications still are written in C++.
> Theory is
> nice, and everyone has one (did I say that?), but the C++ object model
> theory is a pile.
Thanks for telling us so many details. Now go back under your stone
where you trolls belong to.
Christof
Stuart Golodetz
My comment would be that if you're going to troll newsgroups (an
activity which suggests to me that you have far more time than the rest
of us - indeed, there are those who would say 'too much' time), then at
least put forward a *coherent* controversial viewpoint so that you can
watch the sparks fly :)
Being annoying is somewhat forgivable - being inept far less so. If you
live in the UK, think 'Gordon Brown' (who, to our great detriment, is
the latter) and you'll get what I mean. Be annoying if you must, but be
*intelligently* annoying. 'Good' trolls provoke an argument (however
unnecessary) about a topic of some interest to people in the newsgroup;
bad trolls just provoke laughter at their own expense.
Regards,
Stu
Tony
> On 30 Mai, 06:31, "Tony" <t...@my.net> wrote:
>> Well there's the object model: "C++ers" (circa 2009, not language
>> invention time (I'm letting the mentioned latterS off the hook))
>> don't get it. They blindly accept the C++ object model (read,
>> thery're "virtually blindsided"), as it lacks practical substance.
>> Theory is nice, and everyone has one (did I say that?), but the C++
>> object model theory is a pile.
>>
>> I'm gonna stop with that cuz it's such a BIGGIE. I could have made
>> the subject: "The C++ object model sucks!".
>>
>> All comments welcomed.
>
> From what I know you're only considering different "object models" for
> your own programming language design. You should add a little more
> content that qualifies as a good basis for a discussion and move the
> thread to comp.lang.misc or something.
Well you're partly correct: while the discussion is one of language design
and the fact that C++ is already set in stone, make any such "betterment"
discussion more appropriate in a language design group. OTOH, what C++ is,
is C++ and is apparently on-topic. This NG is named c.l.c++.usage. At least
_I_ see it as a catchall for all things C++ (motivation for subgroups, but
kinda late for the ailing C++, and perhaps then just a good idea for any
modern language group).
That said, I think my primary motivation for pursuing a new language (over
C++) is the object model. I think that in the language's maturity.. blah,
blah...
That "said", I totally agree that C++ is "multi-PARADIGMICAL" (note the
emphasis).
Paradigm: to "know" or "believe" something so much that it blinds one to
other possibilities including the correct solution to the problem at hand
and/or to the INcorrectness of the current (even highly regarded) practice
(historic ref: bloodletting).
Tony
> SG wrote:
>> On 30 Mai, 06:31, "Tony" <t...@my.net> wrote:
>>> Well there's the object model: "C++ers" (circa 2009, not language
>>> invention time (I'm letting the mentioned latterS off the hook))
>>> don't get it. They blindly accept the C++ object model (read,
>>> thery're "virtually blindsided"), as it lacks practical substance.
>>> Theory is nice, and everyone has one (did I say that?), but the C++
>>> object model theory is a pile.
>>>
>>> I'm gonna stop with that cuz it's such a BIGGIE. I could have made
>>> the subject: "The C++ object model sucks!".
>>>
>>> All comments welcomed.
>>
>> From what I know you're only considering different "object models"
>> for your own programming language design. You should add a little
>> more content that qualifies as a good basis for a discussion and
>> move the thread to comp.lang.misc or something.
>
> Well you're partly correct: while the discussion is one of language
> design and the fact that C++ is already set in stone, make any such
> "betterment" discussion more appropriate in a language design group.
> OTOH, what C++ is, is C++ and is apparently on-topic.
>This NG is
> named c.l.c++.usage.
An obvious wireless keyboard hiccup: should have included the word 'not'.
(That's one reason why wireless sucks: it doesn't work!). My wireless
keyboard makes me seem stupid sometimes.
Tony
co...@mailvault.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
As others have said, there's not a lot here to discuss. You make
a few generalizations, but that's about it. A lot of people here
agree C++ is flawed. I expect to see a language developed that
corrects the known problems -- not sure how soon. Anyway, I've
complained here before about your not offering details.
Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
www.webEbenezer.net
Tony
Oh how conveniently you bring the vote idea to trial. I totally agree: null
and void: "the vote".
> You make
> a few generalizations,
Is that an accusation? Prove it. (Read: because you don't understand does
not make it "a generalization").
> but that's about it.
Sounds like lynching.
> A lot of people here
Here? So you think there is a "here"? (Quite bizarre).
> agree C++ is flawed. I expect to see a language developed that
> corrects the known problems -- not sure how soon. Anyway, I've
> complained here before about your not offering details.
And who are you, wanting "details"? Hmm?
Christof Donat
> My wireless keyboard makes me seem stupid sometimes.
Get a new Keyboard - though I wouldn't expect that to improve things a
lot.
Christof
Phlip
>> named c.l.c++.usage.
>
> An obvious wireless keyboard hiccup: should have included the word 'not'.
> (That's one reason why wireless sucks: it doesn't work!). My wireless
> keyboard makes me seem stupid sometimes.
>
> Tony
Wireless keyboards prevent proofreading? (-:
Tony
"Phlip" <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cQUl.31319$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
That's not the point.
Tony
"Christof Donat" <c...@okunah.de> wrote in message
news:h00bp1$dqs$1...@svr7.m-online.net...
I wrote that just to see who would bite. You lose sucker!