Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
New appreciation for C++
71 views
Skip to first unread message
Rick C. Hodgin
Mar 8, 2018, 9:47:33 AM3/8/18
to
I've always looked at C++ as being overtly complex, obtuse in much
of its syntax, having some ideals and goals which seemed outside of
what I would consider to be a "proper norm" for data processing.
In developing CAlive, and in going through all of its rigors and
internal requirements of design, I am seeing that much of what I
previously thought of regarding C++'s "poor design and/or imple-
mentation" was really just my not understanding why things worked
the way they do in C++.
As such, I have a new appreciation and respect for C++. I no
longer hold it in such negative regard. However, there are still
many aspects about its design choices that I disagree with, and
CAlive development will continue (James 4:15 Lord willing).
--
Rick C. Hodgin
of its syntax, having some ideals and goals which seemed outside of
what I would consider to be a "proper norm" for data processing.
In developing CAlive, and in going through all of its rigors and
internal requirements of design, I am seeing that much of what I
previously thought of regarding C++'s "poor design and/or imple-
mentation" was really just my not understanding why things worked
the way they do in C++.
As such, I have a new appreciation and respect for C++. I no
longer hold it in such negative regard. However, there are still
many aspects about its design choices that I disagree with, and
CAlive development will continue (James 4:15 Lord willing).
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Chris M. Thomasson
Mar 8, 2018, 3:13:00 PM3/8/18
to
On 3/8/2018 6:47 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I've always looked at C++ as being overtly complex, obtuse in much
> of its syntax, having some ideals and goals which seemed outside of
> what I would consider to be a "proper norm" for data processing.
However, you compile your C with a C++ compiler.
> I've always looked at C++ as being overtly complex, obtuse in much
> of its syntax, having some ideals and goals which seemed outside of
> what I would consider to be a "proper norm" for data processing.
> In developing CAlive, and in going through all of its rigors and
> internal requirements of design, I am seeing that much of what I
> previously thought of regarding C++'s "poor design and/or imple-
> mentation" was really just my not understanding why things worked
> the way they do in C++.
> As such, I have a new appreciation and respect for C++. I no
> longer hold it in such negative regard. However, there are still
> many aspects about its design choices that I disagree with, and
> CAlive development will continue (James 4:15 Lord willing).
wyn...@gmail.com
Mar 9, 2018, 12:40:30 AM3/9/18
to
Rick C. Hodgin於 2018年3月8日星期四 UTC+8下午10時47分33秒寫道：
You can start from https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/, A concrete
C++ library built from concrete things.
In C, there are macro enthusiasts, so are template enthusiasts in C++.
No one has to fall into the concept explaining concept spiral, advanced
fancy as it may be.
Neither one has to join the test of the untested ideology of C++/standard
library.
Tao Te Ching [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao]
Heaven and Earth are not kind.
They regard creatures as guinea pigs
The sage is not kind.
He regards people as guinea pigs.
I say: C++ is not kind, it regards programmers as guinea pigs.
> In developing CAlive, and in going through all of its rigors and
> internal requirements of design, I am seeing that much of what I
> previously thought of regarding C++'s "poor design and/or imple-
> mentation" was really just my not understanding why things worked
> the way they do in C++.
>
> As such, I have a new appreciation and respect for C++. I no
> longer hold it in such negative regard. However, there are still
> many aspects about its design choices that I disagree with, and
> CAlive development will continue (James 4:15 Lord willing).
>
C++ has its (hidden) ideals and goals, you can feel it only, though
it is changing. C++ and its standard library design choices are mixtures
intertwined over time, not easy to say which is which.
C++ has to be good in some way, since we chose C++, not C.
> I've always looked at C++ as being overtly complex, obtuse in much
> of its syntax, having some ideals and goals which seemed outside of
> what I would consider to be a "proper norm" for data processing.
>
If C++ is complex, in a way, it's because you chose to explore "complex"
> of its syntax, having some ideals and goals which seemed outside of
> what I would consider to be a "proper norm" for data processing.
>
You can start from https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/, A concrete
C++ library built from concrete things.
In C, there are macro enthusiasts, so are template enthusiasts in C++.
No one has to fall into the concept explaining concept spiral, advanced
fancy as it may be.
Neither one has to join the test of the untested ideology of C++/standard
library.
Tao Te Ching [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao]
Heaven and Earth are not kind.
They regard creatures as guinea pigs
The sage is not kind.
He regards people as guinea pigs.
I say: C++ is not kind, it regards programmers as guinea pigs.
> In developing CAlive, and in going through all of its rigors and
> internal requirements of design, I am seeing that much of what I
> previously thought of regarding C++'s "poor design and/or imple-
> mentation" was really just my not understanding why things worked
> the way they do in C++.
>
> As such, I have a new appreciation and respect for C++. I no
> longer hold it in such negative regard. However, there are still
> many aspects about its design choices that I disagree with, and
> CAlive development will continue (James 4:15 Lord willing).
>
it is changing. C++ and its standard library design choices are mixtures
intertwined over time, not easy to say which is which.
C++ has to be good in some way, since we chose C++, not C.
Rick C. Hodgin
Mar 9, 2018, 10:18:45 AM3/9/18
to
C code because I like tighter type checking, relaxed syntax constraints
on "struct" keyword and line comment syntax. I rarely use the class,
or many other of C++'s conventions. As I mature in my understanding
of C++, I do begin to appreciate some of its design I previously held
solely in contempt.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
asetof...@gmail.com
Mar 9, 2018, 11:06:33 AM3/9/18
to
I use class operators, operators and function overloading
not use exceptions and C++ library (I have my own)
I like streams too (<< >>) and their type oriented way
Not use iterator and C++ libraries
but C libraries yes
not use exceptions and C++ library (I have my own)
I like streams too (<< >>) and their type oriented way
Not use iterator and C++ libraries
but C libraries yes
asetof...@gmail.com
Mar 9, 2018, 11:10:41 AM3/9/18
to
I used template only for matrix of type
wyn...@gmail.com
Mar 9, 2018, 11:05:40 PM3/9/18
to
>
> C++ has to be good in some way, since we chose C++, not C.
Supplement: Viewer discretion is advised.
> C++ has to be good in some way, since we chose C++, not C.
I did not suggest C++ is better than C. To my understanding,
C is primarily all for what is necessary for building Operating
Systems. C++ is better for 'general?' purpose otherwise (or now,
multi-paradigm).
0 new messages