Time to Retire C++?
Egg Troll
I'm a first year programming student at an Ivy League school and I've
just finished my Visual Basic classes. This term I'll be moving onto
C++. However I've noticed some issues with C++ that I'd like to
discuss with the rest of the programming community. Please do not
think of me as being technically ignorant. In addition to VB, I am
very skilled at HTML programming, one of the most challenging
languages out there!
C++ is based on a concept known as Object Oriented Programming. In
this style of programming (also known as OOPS in the coding community)
a programmer builds "objects" or "glasses" out of his code, and then
manipulates these "glasses". Since I'm assuming that you, dear reader,
are as skilled at programming as I am, I'll skip further explanation
of these "glasses".
Please allow me to make a brief aside here and discuss the origins C++
for a moment. My research shows that this language is one of the
oldest languages in existence, pre-dating even assembly! It was
created in the early 70s when AT&T began looking for a new language to
write BSD, its Unix Operation System (later on, other companies would
"borrow" the BSD source code to build both Solaris and Linux!)
Interestingly, the name C++ is a pun by the creator of the language.
When the first beta was released, it was remarked that the language
would be graded as a C+, because of how hideously complex and unwieldy
it was. The extra plus was tacked on during a later release when some
of these issues were fixed. The language would still be graded a C,
but it was the highest C possible! Truly a clever name for this
language.
Back to the topic on hand, I feel that C++ - despite its flaws - has
been a very valuable tool to the world of computers. Unfortunately
it’s starting to show its age, and I feel that it should be
retired, as COBOL, ADA and Smalltalk seem to have been. Recently I've
become acquainted with another language that's quite recently been
developed. Its one that promises to greatly simplify programming. This
new language is called C.
Although syntactically borrowing a great deal from its predecessor
C++, C greatly simplifies things (thus its name, which hints at its
simpler nature by striping off the clunky double-pluses.) Its biggest
strength is that it abandons an OOPS-style of programming. No more
awkward "objects" or "glasses". Instead C uses what are called
structs. Vaguely similar to a C++ "glass", a struct does away with
anachronisms like inheritance, namespaces and the whole
private/public/protected/friend access issues of its variables and
routines. By freeing the programmer from the requirement to juggle all
these issues, the coder can focus on implementing his algorithm and
rapidly developing his application.
While C lacks the speed and robustness of C++, I think these are petty
issues. Given the speed of modern computers, the relative sluggishness
of C shouldn't be an issue. Robustness and stability will occur as C
becomes more pervasive amongst the programming community and it
becomes more fine-tuned. Eventually C should have stability rivaling
that of C++.
I'm hoping to see C adopted as the de facto standard of programming.
Based on what I've learned of this language, the future seems very
bright indeed for C! Eventually, many years from now, perhaps we'll
even see an operating system coded in this language.
Thank you for your time. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
Egg Troll
Joona I Palaste
on comp.lang.c:
> Hello Gentlemen,
> I'm a first year programming student at an Ivy League school and I've
> just finished my Visual Basic classes. This term I'll be moving onto
> C++. However I've noticed some issues with C++ that I'd like to
> discuss with the rest of the programming community. Please do not
> think of me as being technically ignorant. In addition to VB, I am
> very skilled at HTML programming, one of the most challenging
> languages out there!
Note to all readers: Egg Troll is blatantly spewing out complete
nonsense, just to attract attention. Do not attempt to reply to any of
his points, he won't read them anyway. Egg Troll does not believe his
own words. No one with a functioning brain could be *that* stupid.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"A computer program does what you tell it to do, not what you want it to do."
- Anon
Ben Pfaff
> [a troll]
How nice, you posted it, just like you promised yesterday:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/5/10/21115/9458
Now go away. We don't appreciate trolls here, whether they give
us their first attempts or their reruns.
Jalapeno
eggt...@yahoo.com (Egg Troll) wrote:
> Please allow me to make a brief aside here and discuss the origins C++
> for a moment. My research shows that this language is one of the
> oldest languages in existence, pre-dating even assembly! It was
> created in the early 70s when AT&T
Stop with the revisionist history! Everyone knows C++ was invented by
Microsoft! What an imbecile.
Peter Voth
Jakob Bieling
news:jalapeno1-86FF9...@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
> Everyone knows C++ was invented by Microsoft!
LOL!
--
jb
(replace y with x to reply)
Harold Pekteno
> I'm a first year programming student at an Ivy League school and I've
> just finished my Visual Basic classes.
When trolling, please troll only appropriate newsgroups. In this
case, alt.religion.scientology is for discussion of the criminal cult,
not programming languages.
--
Harold ("My space cooties can beat up =your= space cooties!") Pekteno
http://www.geocities.com/pekteno
Egg Troll
> Note to all readers: Egg Troll is blatantly spewing out complete
> nonsense, just to attract attention. Do not attempt to reply to any of
> his points, he won't read them anyway. Egg Troll does not believe his
> own words. No one with a functioning brain could be *that* stupid.
I'm shocked and hurt to hear such accusations made against me. I come
to these newsgroups for information and assistance. Yet all I receive
are insults and condescending remarks. Apparently if I'm not an elite
"cracker" I'm not deserving of anyone's time. I trust that not
everyone on this group is as bitter and hurtful as you are, Mr Joona.
In the interests of civility, I'll write off your abrasive demeanor as
just another facet of your kooky Finnish culture - although personally
I don't find this aspect as interesting as the Finn's use of dugout
canoes and penis gourds.
Thank you,
Egg Troll
Crush
a few laughs by real coders. But itæ„€ right that there are some things that
could better done: C or C++ isnæ„’ perfect at all. I only want you to take a
view to a really great project that gives C some powers and features your扉e
all been waiting for: The CYCLONE-Compiler:
http://www.research.att.com/projects/cyclone/ that give C less ++ an YCLONE!
Mark McIntyre
>Joona I Palaste <pal...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<abjmgr$k39$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
>
>> Note to all readers: Egg Troll is blatantly spewing out complete
>> nonsense, just to attract attention. Do not attempt to reply to any of
>> his points, he won't read them anyway. Egg Troll does not believe his
>> own words. No one with a functioning brain could be *that* stupid.
>
>I'm shocked and hurt to hear such accusations made against me.
TROLL ALERT. your assertions would work better if you'd not trolled
this and other groups recently, and if you were not spamming such a
wide range.
GO AWAY.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
someguy
bit of correct information in what you write. You learn how to
research because what you did is not one.
Let me help strate up some facts:
Object Oriented Programming = OOP not OOPS.
Object types are called classes not "glasses"
The language that was developed at the 70's was C which is a
procedural language, OOP is a more recent concept of programming
(which in the case of C++ was developed at the beginning of the 80's
by Bjarne Stroustrup - NOT Microsoft). (BTW, VB is supposed to be OO
language (object oriented) but it isn't fully since it doesn't have
inheritance in it).
C is compiled to a much faster code (since it is much closer to
machine code than C++).
The name C and/or C++ has nothing to do with grading the language.
C/C++ flaws are compiler flaws - not the language's, and speaking of
flaws, lets not start with the ones inside Microsoft's compilers...
C++ is a very good language - but like any other language you should
know to what purposes it is fits best.
Assembly is the most basic computer language (beside the actuall
machine code) a person can use - it is almost direcly translated into
machine code, hence it is technically the earliest computer language.
C (not C++) was developed in order to write out the first UNIX
operating systems, many of today's operating systems are written in C,
and some are beginning to adopt also some C++. For example, if any one
would like the source code of the Linux operating system (which is
mainly written using C) can be obtaind easily.
Next time before you write stupid things check out the real facts, and
this is without even getting into all the advatages OOP has over
regular procedural programming, and the advantages C++ has over many
other computer languages.
@attbi.com Matt Wharton
"Jalapeno" <jala...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:jalapeno1-86FF9...@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
What? I could have sworn it was invented by Apple!
Daniel Fox
news:c2038be0.02051...@posting.google.com:
> Where did you come up with all this nonsense ? There isn't almost one
> bit of correct information in what you write. You learn how to
> research because what you did is not one.
>
> Let me help strate up some facts:
> Object Oriented Programming = OOP not OOPS.
> Object types are called classes not "glasses"
[snip]
> Next time before you write stupid things check out the real facts, and
> this is without even getting into all the advatages OOP has over
> regular procedural programming, and the advantages C++ has over many
> other computer languages.
Thank you for proving that no matter how lame the troll, there is always
someone stupid enough to fall for it.
-Daniel
Eugene Kuznetsov
I like these parts:
> Although syntactically borrowing a great deal from its predecessor
> C++
Key word 'predecessor'.
> Vaguely similar to a C++ "glass", a struct does away with
> anachronisms like inheritance, namespaces and the whole
> private/public/protected/friend access issues of its variables and
> routines.
I didn't know that namespaces, though introduced barely 5 years ago, have
already
become anachronisms...
> Eventually, many years from now, perhaps we'll
> even see an operating system coded in this language.
>
Of course, Linux is not an operating system and does not count.
drumstik
> Where did you come up with all this nonsense ? There isn't almost one
> bit of correct information in what you write. You learn how to research
> because what you did is not one.
> Next time before you write stupid things check out the real facts, and
> this is without even getting into all the advatages OOP has over regular
> procedural programming, and the advantages C++ has over many other
> computer languages.
Maybe next time before YOU write stupid things, you should remove the
thumb from your bum and realize that YOU HAVE BEEN TROLLED. If it
weren't for you, Egg Troll's attempt would have been unsuccessful. It's
morons like you that keep him coming back (he's trolled comp.os.linux
a couple times, unfortunately more effectively).
--
drumstik
www.ameriphreak.com
http://phreaks.freeshell.org/files/valuhack.exe http://valuhack.sourceforge.net
Rev Norle Enturbulata
"Matt Wharton" <mattwharton @ attbi.com> wrote in message
news:BQgD8.30245$WR1.23010@sccrnsc01...
Most Mac users have been deluded into thinking so, alas.
Vlastimil Adamovsky
"Egg Troll" <eggt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e2f159f.02051...@posting.google.com...
> Hello Gentlemen,
>
Since I'm assuming that you, dear reader,
> are as skilled at programming as I am, I'll skip further explanation
> of these "glasses".
What glasses??
>
> Please allow me to make a brief aside here and discuss the origins C++
> for a moment. My research shows that this language is one of the
> oldest languages in existence, pre-dating even assembly!
Oh yeeh? So is Smalltalk :)
> Back to the topic on hand, I feel that C++ - despite its flaws - has
> been a very valuable tool to the world of computers. Unfortunately
> it’s starting to show its age, and I feel that it should be
> retired, as COBOL, ADA and Smalltalk seem to have been. Recently I've
> become acquainted with another language that's quite recently been
> developed. Its one that promises to greatly simplify programming. This
> new language is called C.
I C :)
>
> Although syntactically borrowing a great deal from its predecessor
> C++, C greatly simplifies things (thus its name, which hints at its
> simpler nature by striping off the clunky double-pluses.) Its biggest
> strength is that it abandons an OOPS-style of programming.
:)))) April the 1th was two weeks ago...... Nice joke:)
I wonder what will the Smalltalk develop to :)
Vlastik
Patrick J. Volk
>Hello Gentlemen,
>
I have to say, having worked with people who were at Bell Labs, I
truly got a chuckle out of your, how shall we say, unique perspective!
You should try working in the minimalist C-, or if you feel nostalgic,
there is always SLOBOL.
I worked in a language called Genisys once, it only had one command:
ASSIGN. A very Zen language!
Thomas Stegen
> :)))) April the 1th was two weeks ago...... Nice joke:)
> I wonder what will the Smalltalk develop to :)
>
> Vlastik
>
I am obviously in the future...
Help!
--
Thomas Stegen
http://www.geocities.com/thinkoidz
Tommy McDaniel
> "Jalapeno" <jala...@mac.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:jalapeno1-86FF9...@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
>
> > Everyone knows C++ was invented by Microsoft!
>
> LOL!
That may seem funny and all, but during my first semester of C++
almost a year and a half ago the teacher actually informed the class
during the first class period that C++ was owned by Micro$oft and that
they were using it to compete against Sun and Java. I kid you not. I
didn't know jack squat about programming C++ (besides what's also
legal C), and yet I was wondering immediately where they get these
guys from. And if you want more comforting thoughts as you sleep
tonight, this guy was something or other at Lockheed Martin, making
sure that we can sleep safe and sound at night (at least those of us
in the Corporate States of America). Actually, now that I think about
it, maybe that's why they sent him to Britain on some sort of business
or other...
Tommy McDaniel
Stuart Golodetz
news:h65rduoi59afimm89...@4ax.com...
And if he wasn't called "Egg *Troll*"? :-)
*PLONK*
Stuart.
Stuart Golodetz
news:c2038be0.02051...@posting.google.com...
> Where did you come up with all this nonsense ? There isn't almost one
> bit of correct information in what you write. You learn how to
> research because what you did is not one.
>
> Let me help strate up some facts:
> C is compiled to a much faster code (since it is much closer to
> machine code than C++).
Absolute rubbish. Neither language is necessarily compiled to faster code,
it very much depends on the actual code you write. You can write fast (or
slow) code in either. Incidentally, it's possible to write fast code in any
language, provided of course that the compiler is relatively decent. Any
differences in speed between the same bit of code compiled first as C and
then as C++ (assuming it is Standard-compliant in both) are purely down to
the inadequacies of whichever compiler you're using; there should be no
difference between the two if the compiler has been well-written.
HTH,
Stuart.
<snip>
Paul Mensonides
news:3cde3622$0$233$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > Let me help strate up some facts:
> <snip>
> > C is compiled to a much faster code (since it is much closer to
> > machine code than C++).
>
> Absolute rubbish. Neither language is necessarily compiled to faster code,
> it very much depends on the actual code you write. You can write fast (or
> slow) code in either. Incidentally, it's possible to write fast code in any
> language, provided of course that the compiler is relatively decent. Any
> differences in speed between the same bit of code compiled first as C and
> then as C++ (assuming it is Standard-compliant in both) are purely down to
> the inadequacies of whichever compiler you're using; there should be no
> difference between the two if the compiler has been well-written.
If you turn off exception handling support you are right, but if exception
handling is enabled, you pay a price for it even if you don't use it.
Paul Mensonides
> HTH,
>
> Stuart.
Serve Laurijssen
"Paul Mensonides" <pmen...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:fGqD8.33938$WR1.26006@sccrnsc01...
> If you turn off exception handling support you are right, but if exception
> handling is enabled, you pay a price for it even if you don't use it.
What price? What is so slow about exception handling?
Paul Mensonides
"Serve Laurijssen" <b...@content.nl> wrote in message
news:2YqD8.12708$48.12...@zwoll1.home.nl...
Compiler has to build a list of what needs to be destructed if the stack is
unrolled. The significance of the penalty is obviously a quality of
implementation issue, but nevertheless it is there. Also, I'm not saying it is
particularly slow, just that you pay a price for it--where you wouldn't with C.
In my opinion, the benefits justify the price.
Paul Mensonides
Alex Kro
What's next on your list? Let me guess: C++ is better then Smalltalk (which
unfortunately is currently wide-spread) due to its extreme runtime type
information and support of the government of Ghana?
M.T. Head
Except "someguy" is also the Troll. Trace the path and its the same.
You've been Trolled, matey.
James Dennett
That depends on your compiler. There's no technical reason why
that has to be true. In fact, even when exceptions are used,
compilers can arrange that there is no runtime overhead (except
a small amount of extra code off the execution path) until an
exception is actually thrown.
Not all compilers are that good yet, and not all ever will be,
but some have so-called "zero overhead" exception models already
and more will do in the future.
--
James Dennett <jden...@acm.org>
James Dennett
So -- if you use destructors and exceptions, you might have
to pay a (probably small) price. But if you stick to PODs,
which are all C has anyway, you have no need of destructors,
and so this goes away. Again, C++ does not make you pay if
you don't use its extra facilities.
In C, instead of using a destructor, you would have to have
explicit error handling logic in your own code each time you
wanted to handle releasing a resource because of an error.
That's likely to be *slower* that the exception handling code
a compiler can generate, at least on the non-error path.
--
James Dennett <jden...@acm.org>
Jay Woods
Most Mac users don't even know what C++ is, and the ones who do are pissed
that Microsoft thinks they invented it!
jay
Good day. I SAID good day.
Dave Bird
writes:
Thanks for this serious comment (and plug for your own language
experiment!). I grew up in the 1970s with a great diversity
of languages which were rather crap at smoothly notating
procedural computer programming. Martin Richards' BCPL, which
became B, which became C, which became C++, was a hell of an
improvement... and became at one period almost the monopoly.
But it has done the class business in an awkward and clunky
way... Java is better in many ways as a notation to write,
although it has its own limitations. I look forward to
viewing your own stuff when I go back on-line.
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
.................................................................
STOP PRESS: EIGHT SEVEN MILLION THIN DIMES FOR WOLLERSHEIM =====>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63143-2002May9.html
Kurt Watzka
You obviously missed the GPL, Mandrake Linux and cats on H. He _is_
a troll and the Gates assumption does not look too far fetched.
Kurt
--
| Kurt Watzka
| wat...@stat.uni-muenchen.de
Paul Mensonides
news:3CDE5F71...@acm.org...
> So -- if you use destructors and exceptions, you might have
> to pay a (probably small) price. But if you stick to PODs,
> which are all C has anyway, you have no need of destructors,
> and so this goes away. Again, C++ does not make you pay if
> you don't use its extra facilities.
Yes, but that is not what I meant. If you don't use non-POD classes ever, it
defeats the underlying purpose of C++. Plus, the standard library itself uses
exceptions--granted you don't have to use it. :)
> In C, instead of using a destructor, you would have to have
> explicit error handling logic in your own code each time you
> wanted to handle releasing a resource because of an error.
> That's likely to be *slower* that the exception handling code
> a compiler can generate, at least on the non-error path.
I'm definitely not saying that it is better. I merely pointing out that the
exception handling mechanism implies some overhead--even when you don't use it
(thanks to separate compilation). For instance, it requires that various
structures for runtime type identification be available. That increases code
size that can *theoretically* result in more frequent cache misses, page faults,
etc., which can significantly slow down code. I agree that this is a somewhat
contrived example, however it *is* true. Like I said before, it is worth the
price for the feature, but unlike other C++ features, you *do* pay a price for
it even if you don't use it--which is why most compilers have an option to
disable exception handling and runtime type identification. Either way, as far
as I know, that is the *only* C++ feature that you pay for even if you don't use
it. That is a pretty good track record.
Paul Mensonides
Paul Mensonides
> That depends on your compiler. There's no technical reason why
> that has to be true. In fact, even when exceptions are used,
> compilers can arrange that there is no runtime overhead (except
> a small amount of extra code off the execution path) until an
> exception is actually thrown.
But the trade off is storage space which can significantly decrease performance
under certain conditions. Please don't think that I'm arguing against C++ (or
the exception handling mechanism), just pointing out that it has some inherent
overhead. It is a slight aberration in the "you don't pay for what you don't
use" philosophy of C++. That is all.
> Not all compilers are that good yet, and not all ever will be,
> but some have so-called "zero overhead" exception models already
> and more will do in the future.
Which compilers have a "zero overhead" exception model? And if so, how do they
do it? --just curious.
Paul Mensonides
William D. Tallman
For people who have never been involved with "real computers" <grin>, there
is this unconscious assumption that they all come with M$ as a matter of
necessity. Now, one would think that engineers and such would be aware
that this is not so, but the evidence sometimes suggests otherwise. This
is the power of M$BORG!
I've been given to understand that there is a danger that M$ will wind up
isolating the U.S. from the rest of the world: if *NIX becomes illegal
here, and it is the system of choice everywhere else..... interesting
thought!! What is even more interesting is to contemplate the possibility
that, at that point, M$ will start claiming to own C itself!
Ridiculous? Impossible? Yes... and no! It appears that there is
absolutely nothing that is beyond the grasp of the M$BORG; the U.S.
government appears to be a subsidiary of M$, why not the C language?
Remember, history is what survives for posterity to learn, and more
improbable events have been perpetrated than the vanishment of those Bell
Lab folk from the legacy of computers. Hold on to what you know, and have
pity on those who have been misinformed, for there but for fate go our
progeny in succeeding generations.
Bill Tallman
_____________________________
"In the beginning, there was MicroSoft......"
The Authorized WFG3 Bible, MS-Redmond, MS-Washington, MS-US, MS-20xx.
Dave Bird
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article<abk46c$t6g$03$1...@news.t-online.com>, Crush <Cr...@t-online.de>
>writes:
>>Itæ„€ right - he wrote so much funny stuff about C & C++ that this could get
>>a few laughs by real coders. But itæ„€ right that there are some things that
>>could better done: C or C++ isnæ„’ perfect at all. I only want you to take a
>>view to a really great project that gives C some powers and features your扉e
>>all been waiting for: The CYCLONE-Compiler:
>>http://www.research.att.com/projects/cyclone/ that give C less ++ an YCLONE!
>
> Thanks for this serious comment (and plug for your own language
> experiment!). I grew up in the 1970s with a great diversity
> of languages which were rather crap at smoothly notating
> procedural computer programming. Martin Richards' BCPL, which
> became B, which became C, which became C++, was a hell of an
> improvement... and became at one period almost the monopoly.
> But it has done the class business in an awkward and clunky
> way... Java is better in many ways as a notation to write,
> although it has its own limitations. I look forward to
> viewing your own stuff when I go back on-line.
Having read it, it is excellent and I might have a go when I
have time for experiments. What this is boils down to "safe C"
which has bounds and pointer checking yet is very efficient;
what i would like to see is something that handled the class
business without the first-pass mistakes of C++ and Java.
(We could have something worse: the original idea was
smalltalk, a total object-message paradigm with almost
no procedural elements... people reared up in bafflement
at this monstrosity and we more wisely went for procedural
languages with classes bolted on: C with classes, Pascal
with classes, Basic with classes. Interestingly these are
the only languages people would give house-room on the early
micros. Attempts to have micro fortran, pl/1 or other
abortions met with a resounding "no" from people who had
no legacy attachment to these and saw them as the dinosaurs
they were. A lot of accumulated crap was filtered out
at the stage when we had to re-think everything from scratch
for a new brand of programmer using new very-small machines).
Daniel Fox
news:3cde553b...@news.ntlworld.com:
> On Sun, 12 May 2002 00:14:12 GMT, drumstik <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 May 2002 18:10:04 -0400, someguy wrote:
>>> Next time before you write stupid things check out the real facts,
>>> and this is without even getting into all the advatages OOP has over
>>> regular procedural programming, and the advantages C++ has over many
>>> other computer languages.
>>Maybe next time before YOU write stupid things, you should remove the
>>thumb from your bum and realize that YOU HAVE BEEN TROLLED. If it
>>weren't for you, Egg Troll's attempt would have been unsuccessful.
>>It's morons like you that keep him coming back (he's trolled
>>comp.os.linux a couple times, unfortunately more effectively).
> Except "someguy" is also the Troll. Trace the path and its the same.
> You've been Trolled, matey.
Fantastic, you've proven they both posted from google groups.
-Daniel
Luke
TOO FUNNY!!
GLASSES!
LOL!!!
George Pelasgian
> "Jalapeno" <jala...@mac.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:jalapeno1-86FF9...@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
>
> > Everyone knows C++ was invented by Microsoft!
>
> LOL!
> --
> jb
>
> (replace y with x to reply)
yes, but microsoft is a subsidiary of AT&T which was created alongside
with the other baby bells. That's why it provides so many bells and
whistles in its programmes. Also, that's the reason why people working
in the industry read the book "for whom the bells toll" when their
programmes are embraced and extended.
Alex Dicks
In order to unwind the stack and called destructors, it is necessary
to know what objects were created in each scope. The zero-overhead
model has the compiler generate a table of such information at
compile-time. Only when an exception is thrown are these tables are
consulted. The alternative is to generate such information at
run-time, which slows execution speed.
Well, even the zero-overhead exception model is not without it's
drawback, increased code size, as a table must be generated for each
function, even if exceptions are not used. This leads to larger
binaries.
This system of compile-time tables is the model employed by GCC/G++.
You can turn it off with a command line switch if you don't use
exceptions, which will decrease your code size (only especially
significant for embedded systems).
I have heard that it is possible to ensure that the exception tables
are not loaded into memory until needed, so that the extra code size
does not hog memory. I don't know which compilers use this particular
mechanism.
--
Alex
Tommy McDaniel
> IANAL, so I ask: "Can *NIX become illegal in the USA"? Microsoft can
> forbid the use of *NIX among Microsoft employees, that is all well and
> good, but I don't see any way they can forbid the use of *NIX among
> anyone else. Or is the USA legal system even more money-centered than I
> thought it was?
> It just seems so strange, that *NIX was invented in the USA, and now it
> would be in danger of becoming illegal there.
Oh, it's way more money-centered than you thought then. Look up the
artist formerly known as the SSSCA, now known as the CBDTPA or
something like that. It doesn't explicitly state "*n*x shall
heretofore be illegal," but through its demands that all pieces of
hardware and software (including *n*x) have built-in
government-approved and -mandated copyright controls, it would
basically outlaw Open Source software here, which I know, isn't all of
*n*x, but certainly includes Linux at least. And the Devil will
probably be taking up the new hobby of ice-skating before such crap
gets rammed into Linux. Although considering Alan Cox's absolutely
brilliant philosophy of 'protest through civil obedience' (censored
changelogs, anyone?), who knows if he'll try to make some version of
Linux that supports it too. Not that anyone would use it, especially
me, since I'll be in a country far, far away. As to proprietary
*n*x's, who knows. Maybe Sun would incorporate the crap into Solaris,
and so forth, but who knows (I'd just relocate to a different country
were I them). Basically, it's not just that they're trying to outlaw
*n*x, they're trying to outlaw Open Source software and
general-purpose computers while they're at it, and replace them with
entertainment-industry-software and -terminals.
Tommy McDaniel
Ioannis Vranos
news:4e2f159f.02051...@posting.google.com...
> Hello Gentlemen,
>
> just finished my Visual Basic classes. This term I'll be moving onto
> C++. However I've noticed some issues with C++ that I'd like to
> discuss with the rest of the programming community. Please do not
> think of me as being technically ignorant. In addition to VB, I am
> very skilled at HTML programming, one of the most challenging
> languages out there!
I think that qualifies for a Master.
> C++ is based on a concept known as Object Oriented Programming.
No, C++ is a multiparadigm language. It supports 4 paradigms: Object
Oriented, Procedural, Modular (namespaces) and Generic programming
(templates). Each paradigm is supported well and close to maximum space
& time efficiency.
> In
> this style of programming (also known as OOPS in the coding community)
> a programmer builds "objects" or "glasses" out of his code, and then
> manipulates these "glasses". Since I'm assuming that you, dear reader,
> are as skilled at programming as I am, I'll skip further explanation
> of these "glasses".
>
> Please allow me to make a brief aside here and discuss the origins C++
> for a moment. My research shows that this language is one of the
> oldest languages in existence, pre-dating even assembly! It was
You did the research in the dream-book? I 'll not answer you why you are
wrong, research more.
> created in the early 70s when AT&T began looking for a new language to
> write BSD, its Unix Operation System (later on, other companies would
> "borrow" the BSD source code to build both Solaris and Linux!)
> Interestingly, the name C++ is a pun by the creator of the language.
No it isn't.
> When the first beta was released, it was remarked that the language
> would be graded as a C+, because of how hideously complex and unwieldy
> it was.
Or to show how clueless you are.
> The extra plus was tacked on during a later release when some
> of these issues were fixed. The language would still be graded a C,
> but it was the highest C possible! Truly a clever name for this
> language.
>
> Back to the topic on hand, I feel that C++ - despite its flaws - has
> been a very valuable tool to the world of computers. Unfortunately
> it’s starting to show its age, and I feel that it should be
> retired, as COBOL, ADA and Smalltalk seem to have been.
Yes. You can return back to VB.
> Recently I've
> become acquainted with another language that's quite recently been
> developed. Its one that promises to greatly simplify programming. This
> new language is called C.
! Ioannis looks the window and thinks to commit suicide.
> Although syntactically borrowing a great deal from its predecessor
> C++, C greatly simplifies things (thus its name, which hints at its
> simpler nature by striping off the clunky double-pluses.)
Ioannis moves the curtain.
> Its biggest
> strength is that it abandons an OOPS-style of programming. No more
> awkward "objects" or "glasses". Instead C uses what are called
> structs. Vaguely similar to a C++ "glass", a struct does away with
> anachronisms like inheritance, namespaces and the whole
> private/public/protected/friend access issues of its variables and
> routines. By freeing the programmer from the requirement to juggle all
> these issues, the coder can focus on implementing his algorithm and
> rapidly developing his application.
Ioannis opens the window.
> While C lacks the speed and robustness of C++, I think these are petty
> issues. Given the speed of modern computers, the relative sluggishness
> of C shouldn't be an issue. Robustness and stability will occur as C
> becomes more pervasive amongst the programming community and it
> becomes more fine-tuned. Eventually C should have stability rivaling
> that of C++.
Ioannis looks down.
> I'm hoping to see C adopted as the de facto standard of programming.
> Based on what I've learned of this language, the future seems very
> bright indeed for C! Eventually, many years from now, perhaps we'll
> even see an operating system coded in this language.
>
> Thank you for your time. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
>
> Egg Troll
Nah, it is too high.
--
Ioannis
* Ioannis Vranos
* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.cjb.net
* Alternative URL: http://run.to/noicys
Arnold Hendriks
> This system of compile-time tables is the model employed by GCC/G++.
> You can turn it off with a command line switch if you don't use
> exceptions, which will decrease your code size (only especially
> significant for embedded systems).
> I have heard that it is possible to ensure that the exception tables
> are not loaded into memory until needed, so that the extra code size
> does not hog memory. I don't know which compilers use this particular
> mechanism.
Most modern systems can already do this by themselves. When you start a
binary, it's not loaded into memory, but mapped inside its virtual memory.
As the process runs, only the code parts that are actually hit will
get loaded into memory (after a page fault). So as long as the exception
tables aren't accessed, they won't get loaded. And when they're not accessed
any more after that, they'll be removed from memory again eventually.
--
Arnold Hendriks <a.hen...@b-lex.com>
B-Lex Information Technologies, http://www.b-lex.com/
Mike Wahler
> "James Dennett" <jden...@acm.org> wrote in message
> news:3CDE5F71...@acm.org...
> > So -- if you use destructors and exceptions, you might have
> > to pay a (probably small) price. But if you stick to PODs,
> > which are all C has anyway, you have no need of destructors,
> > and so this goes away. Again, C++ does not make you pay if
> > you don't use its extra facilities.
>
> Yes, but that is not what I meant. If you don't use non-POD classes ever,
it
> defeats the underlying purpose of C++.
And what do you think that 'purpose' is?
> Plus, the standard library itself uses
> exceptions--granted you don't have to use it. :)
The library can be told not to use exceptions.
> > In C, instead of using a destructor, you would have to have
> > explicit error handling logic in your own code each time you
> > wanted to handle releasing a resource because of an error.
> > That's likely to be *slower* that the exception handling code
> > a compiler can generate, at least on the non-error path.
>
> I'm definitely not saying that it is better. I merely pointing out that
the
> exception handling mechanism implies some overhead--even when you don't
use it
No, only when you use it.
> (thanks to separate compilation). For instance, it requires that various
> structures for runtime type identification be available.
Exceptions have nothing to do with RTTI.
> That increases code
> size that can *theoretically* result in more frequent cache misses, page
faults,
> etc., which can significantly slow down code.
None of that has anything to do with exceptions.
> I agree that this is a somewhat
> contrived example, however it *is* true.
Nope.
> Like I said before, it is worth the
> price for the feature, but unlike other C++ features, you *do* pay a price
for
> it even if you don't use it--
Not true. One of the C++ 'mantras' is "you don't pay for what you don't
use."
>which is why most compilers have an option to
> disable exception handling and runtime type identification.
>Either way, as far
> as I know, that is the *only* C++ feature that you pay for
Pay what?
-Mike
jamie
>I am
> very skilled at HTML programming, one of the most challenging
> languages out there!
>
Ivy League eh?
Rev Norle Enturbulata
"jamie" <jamc...@hotmail.BOOM.com> wrote in message
news:abqhs8$2nt$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snort] Thanks. I needed that this morning.
--
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
* Insert Xenu pamphlets into $cientology
* books being sold everywhere! It's fun!
Tony
> news:jalapeno1-86FF9...@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
>
> > Everyone knows C++ was invented by Microsoft!
Are you sure it wasn't Al Gore?
Joona I Palaste
on comp.lang.c:
No, Al Gore invented BCPL. Dick Cheney invented C++.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"Shh! The maestro is decomposing!"
- Gary Larson
Thomas Stegen
> Tony <to...@my.isp.net> scribbled the following
> on comp.lang.c:
>
>>"Jakob Bieling" <net...@gmy.net> wrote in message
>>news:abjqf7$4to$05$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>>>"Jalapeno" <jala...@mac.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>news:jalapeno1-86FF9...@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Everyone knows C++ was invented by Microsoft!
>>>>
>
>>Are you sure it wasn't Al Gore?
>>
>
> No, Al Gore invented BCPL. Dick Cheney invented C++.
>
>
And Bush invented Basic, sort of in his league I think.
--
Thomas Stegen
http://www.geocities.com/thinkoidz
George Pelasgian
I don't know wherever you realised that dear, but he's taking the piss out
of us all in purpose. If he was so stupid indeed as to write such things,
he'd have an accident on the way out of his mama the day he was born.
That's actually what he wanted you to do, answer his bullshit and take him
seriously...
Patrida, se douleuei psilh kontobelonia kai xampari den phres!
George Pelasgian
Mate, who's telling such things and is not publicly whipped at Leicester square?
For God's shake. Even if someone is thick enought as to propose such things, or
ask to put, I don't know, a tracking device right up our r's too, do you reckon that they're will
be such a thing as market for such devices?
Such things about the State's Gov. I haven't heard even in the X-Files.
Cheers
George
Ioannis Vranos
message news:3CE1AA2D...@hotmail.com...
> >
>
> I don't know wherever you realised that dear, but he's taking the piss
out
> of us all in purpose. If he was so stupid indeed as to write such
things,
> he'd have an accident on the way out of his mama the day he was born.
>
> That's actually what he wanted you to do, answer his bullshit and take
him
> seriously...
Well i understood he was teliing crap on purpose, the time i was about
to jump from the window. :) But i kept writing anyway.
> Patrida, se douleuei psilh kontobelonia kai xampari den phres!
Geia soy patrioti, apo poy eisai?
Eric G. Miller
> Tommy McDaniel wrote:
>
>> Oh, it's way more money-centered than you thought then. Look up the artist
>> formerly known as the SSSCA, now known as the CBDTPA or something like that.
>> It doesn't explicitly state "*n*x shall heretofore be illegal," but through
>> its demands that all pieces of hardware and software (including *n*x) have
>> built-in government-approved and -mandated copyright controls, it would
[snip]
>
> Mate, who's telling such things and is not publicly whipped at Leicester
> square? For God's shake. Even if someone is thick enought as to propose such
> things, or ask to put, I don't know, a tracking device right up our r's too,
> do you reckon that they're will be such a thing as market for such devices?
>
> Such things about the State's Gov. I haven't heard even in the X-Files.
http://thomas.loc.gov Look up Senate bill 2048 -- It's real enough.
It's not a tracking device, but an ill-conceived copyright control scheme based
on "findings" of questionable merit.
I don't think this has anything to do with galvanometers, so I removed
alt.religion.scientology ;-)
Ioannis Vranos
news:pan.2002.05.15.06...@jps-nospam.net...
> >
> > Such things about the State's Gov. I haven't heard even in the
X-Files.
>
> http://thomas.loc.gov Look up Senate bill 2048 -- It's real enough.
>
> It's not a tracking device, but an ill-conceived copyright control
scheme based
> on "findings" of questionable merit.
2048 is an invalid bill number
Tommy McDaniel
Reality is stranger than fiction sometimes. Especially when dealing
with corporate-bought governments that merely act as proxies for the
highest bidder. Someone else has posted to the groups the exact number
of the bill. Don't take my word for it, research the thing and see for
yourself whether it's real or not. I'm already trying to pick what
country I'm going to move to when I finish college, probably whether
this passes or not.
Tommy McDaniel
Jay Woods
Try searching with an "S" in front of it.
Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (Introduced in
the Senate)
S 2048 IS
jay
Kelsey Bjarnason
news:jalapeno1-86FF9...@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
> In article <4e2f159f.02051...@posting.google.com>,
> eggt...@yahoo.com (Egg Troll) wrote:
>
> > Please allow me to make a brief aside here and discuss the origins C++
> > for a moment. My research shows that this language is one of the
> > oldest languages in existence, pre-dating even assembly! It was
>
> Microsoft! What an imbecile.
Like so many things MS, it was *not* invented by them. It was co-opted. :)
Just Jekke
More fool you. Every enlightened being knows that Microsoft was
originally founded during the reign of Telemtpah as a response to the
perceived loss of stature of the god's wife in Egyptian religion. Not
only did Microsoft invent C++, they also invented COBOL, PERL, PL/1,
Delphi, and proto-Semitic as a way to co-opt their own detractors into
the fold.
If you put pictures of Bill Gates, L. Ron Hubbard, Bjarne Stroustrup,
and Larry Ellison side by side, you will notice alarming similarities
that are too obvious to go into here. But, I will point out that
Bjarne Stroustrup has almost the same letters as BUST OUT THE JAMS,
give or take a few letters for camouflage.
The previous message was posted to comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++,
comp.lang.smalltalk, alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++, annd
alt.religion.scientology. I have removed the unnecessary newsgroup,
since this clearly has nothing to do with smalltalk.
--Jekke
--
Because I must be interesting to someone:
http://holdem.net/blog
Kip Warner
Thats awesome. I wish I had thought of that. I love laughing at all the
losers on here who get all pissed off about stupid things like the exact
technicalities behind replying to someone. Good job Troll.
Kip
Egg Troll wrote:
> Hello Gentlemen,
>
> I'm a first year programming student at an Ivy League school and I've
> just finished my Visual Basic classes. This term I'll be moving onto
> C++. However I've noticed some issues with C++ that I'd like to
> discuss with the rest of the programming community. Please do not
> think of me as being technically ignorant. In addition to VB, I am
> very skilled at HTML programming, one of the most challenging
> languages out there!
>
> C++ is based on a concept known as Object Oriented Programming. In
> this style of programming (also known as OOPS in the coding community)
> a programmer builds "objects" or "glasses" out of his code, and then
> manipulates these "glasses". Since I'm assuming that you, dear reader,
> are as skilled at programming as I am, I'll skip further explanation
> of these "glasses".
>
> Please allow me to make a brief aside here and discuss the origins C++
> for a moment. My research shows that this language is one of the
> oldest languages in existence, pre-dating even assembly! It was
> created in the early 70s when AT&T began looking for a new language to
> write BSD, its Unix Operation System (later on, other companies would
> "borrow" the BSD source code to build both Solaris and Linux!)
> Interestingly, the name C++ is a pun by the creator of the language.
> When the first beta was released, it was remarked that the language
> would be graded as a C+, because of how hideously complex and unwieldy
> it was. The extra plus was tacked on during a later release when some
> of these issues were fixed. The language would still be graded a C,
> but it was the highest C possible! Truly a clever name for this
> language.
>
> Back to the topic on hand, I feel that C++ - despite its flaws - has
> been a very valuable tool to the world of computers. Unfortunately
> it’s starting to show its age, and I feel that it should be
> retired, as COBOL, ADA and Smalltalk seem to have been. Recently I've
> become acquainted with another language that's quite recently been
> developed. Its one that promises to greatly simplify programming. This
> new language is called C.
>
> Although syntactically borrowing a great deal from its predecessor
> C++, C greatly simplifies things (thus its name, which hints at its
> simpler nature by striping off the clunky double-pluses.) Its biggest
> strength is that it abandons an OOPS-style of programming. No more
> awkward "objects" or "glasses". Instead C uses what are called
> structs. Vaguely similar to a C++ "glass", a struct does away with
> anachronisms like inheritance, namespaces and the whole
> private/public/protected/friend access issues of its variables and
> routines. By freeing the programmer from the requirement to juggle all
> these issues, the coder can focus on implementing his algorithm and
> rapidly developing his application.
>
> While C lacks the speed and robustness of C++, I think these are petty
> issues. Given the speed of modern computers, the relative sluggishness
> of C shouldn't be an issue. Robustness and stability will occur as C
> becomes more pervasive amongst the programming community and it
> becomes more fine-tuned. Eventually C should have stability rivaling
> that of C++.
>
Kip Warner
Richard Heathfield
>
> LOL,
>
> Thats awesome. I wish I had thought of that.
Please don't top-post. Put your reply below the material it addresses,
and remove any extraneous quoted material. That way, we have a fighting
chance of understanding your reply in context. As it is, your point,
whatever it was, has lost any force it might otherwise of had, since
nobody can determine /what/ you had thought of and what you consider
awesome - at least not without learning to read back to front, and who
would be stupid enough to do that? (Apart from corporate execs, of
course.)
--
Richard Heathfield : bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Richard Heathfield
>
> As it is, your point,
> whatever it was, has lost any force it might otherwise of had
s/of/have/
No excuses offered (mainly because I can't think of a convincing one
right now).
ke...@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> writes:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> As it is, your point,
>> whatever it was, has lost any force it might otherwise of had
>
> s/of/have/
>
> No excuses offered (mainly because I can't think of a convincing one
> right now).
Your keyboard's broken, it keeps swapping or replacing words. I spotted
it earlier, remember?
--
Chris "cattle of wizardry" Dollin
C FAQs at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/comp.lang.c.html
C welcome: http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html
Ioannis Vranos
news:ac2kvr$i97$3...@murdoch.hpl.hp.com...
> In article <3CE4C44A...@eton.powernet.co.uk>,
> Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> writes:
> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>
> >> As it is, your point,
> >> whatever it was, has lost any force it might otherwise of had
> >
> > s/of/have/
> >
> > No excuses offered (mainly because I can't think of a convincing one
> > right now).
>
> Your keyboard's broken, it keeps swapping or replacing words. I
spotted
> it earlier, remember?
I think it is an OS problem. Winblowz with pointers running around to
variables.
Serve Laurijssen
"Ioannis Vranos" <noi...@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10216336...@athprx02.forthnet.gr...
> > > s/of/have/
> > >
> > > No excuses offered (mainly because I can't think of a convincing one
> > > right now).
> >
> > Your keyboard's broken, it keeps swapping or replacing words. I
> spotted
> > it earlier, remember?
>
>
> I think it is an OS problem. Winblowz with pointers running around to
> variables.
Windows' glasses are probably broken