"How refactoring my C++ application into a Go library made it better in every way"

[Lynn McGuire]

"How refactoring my C++ application into a Go library made it better in
every way"

https://medium.com/@brendanleglaunec/how-refactoring-my-c-application-into-a-go-library-made-it-better-in-every-way-b99aa15fcfdf

Interesting. Very specific though. And I have been watching Go very
loosely.

Lynn

[Richard]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> spake the secret code
<os30e7$d2g$1...@dont-email.me> thusly:

Refactoring? More like rewrite.

Not knowing the difference I suppose is par for the course -- many
people don't seem to understand the difference.

Still, it makes me wonder about the rest of the observations in there.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[Öö Tiib]

Golang is just Google's java. It is like C# is Microsoft's java,
Swift is Apple's java and Java is Oracle's java. The javas are for
catching newbies into their farms to implement prototypes in easily
reverse-engineered languages.

Every of those monsters makes most of their own software in C++. ;)

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Mon, 2017-10-16, Richard wrote:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> spake the secret code
> <os30e7$d2g$1...@dont-email.me> thusly:
>
>>"How refactoring my C++ application into a Go library made it better in
>>every way"
>>
>>https://medium.com/@brendanleglaunec/how-refactoring-my-c-application-into-a-go-library-made-it-better-in-every-way-b99aa15fcfdf
>>
>>Interesting. Very specific though. And I have been watching Go very
>>loosely.
>
> Refactoring? More like rewrite.

Not even a rewrite: he started out with a program with N features, and
ended up with a library or a microservice for a subset of them.

> Not knowing the difference I suppose is par for the course -- many
> people don't seem to understand the difference.
>
> Still, it makes me wonder about the rest of the observations in there.

I don't see any real observations related to C++ versus Go/Go!/Golang.
I mostly see a guy who had a chance to do a rewrite from scratch, was
allowed to drop features, and succeeded.

His arguments for Go are limited to a supportive community, and it
being easy to start working with.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

[Melzzzzz]

Don't forget Rust ;)


--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[Öö Tiib]

I think that D and Rust are fair attempts of making "better C++".
Rust is language supported by Mozilla. That moz://a is known to be the
wraith of Netscape. However Rust lacks reflection feature. Run-time
reflection is the typical source of inefficiency and ease of
reverse-engineering.

[asetof...@gmail.com]

I think that C++ (some subset of it) could be already a better C++. I would like if they extend operators symbol to 10% of unicode symbols: Because the clue of one programming language are, for what I see, 3
all that have something in common with readability

And that goes to implement point 2

1) do all easily and safety
if that is possible
2) reduce the amount of characters for doing some operation
3) scale well until micro instructions (could be assembly) and toward more hll

[asetof...@gmail.com]

1) do all easily and safety
if that is possible

this would be not possible when there are functions that has to elaborate array, near the machine
as implementing multiprecision number operations

But in the hll function safety should be increased
For to be easy: There are operations that could not be easy
so it is perhaps better

1) do all as easy and safety as possible in a generic computer language

[woodb...@gmail.com]

After reading that article, some might think C++ was
doomed. C++ has had its ups and downs. I think online
code generation is going to be an increasingly important
part of computing and C++ will be part of that.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - "America isn't great because America
is powerful. America is powerful because America is great."
Ben Shapiro (dailywire.com)

http://webEbenezer.net

[Scott Lurndal]

woodb...@gmail.com writes:
>On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 12:37:52 AM UTC-5, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> On Mon, 2017-10-16, Richard wrote:
>> > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>> >
>> > Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> spake the secret code
>> > <os30e7$d2g$1...@dont-email.me> thusly:
>> >
>> >>"How refactoring my C++ application into a Go library made it better in
>> >>every way"
>> >>
>> >>https://medium.com/@brendanleglaunec/how-refactoring-my-c-application-into-a-go-library-made-it-better-in-every-way-b99aa15fcfdf
>> >>
>> >>Interesting. Very specific though. And I have been watching Go very
>> >>loosely.
>> >
>> > Refactoring? More like rewrite.
>>
>> Not even a rewrite: he started out with a program with N features, and
>> ended up with a library or a microservice for a subset of them.
>>
>> > Not knowing the difference I suppose is par for the course -- many
>> > people don't seem to understand the difference.
>> >
>> > Still, it makes me wonder about the rest of the observations in there.
>>
>> I don't see any real observations related to C++ versus Go/Go!/Golang.
>> I mostly see a guy who had a chance to do a rewrite from scratch, was
>> allowed to drop features, and succeeded.
>>
>> His arguments for Go are limited to a supportive community, and it
>> being easy to start working with.
>>
>
>After reading that article, some might think C++ was
>doomed.

Only if one is as moronic as the current american president.

[Juha Nieminen]

Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Only if one is as moronic as the current american president.

The funny thing about leftists is that they behave like their political
opinions are their religion. They just can't help but to constantly
bring it up in contexts that have absolutely nothing to do with
politics. It's like that religious retard who keeps spamming this
newsgroup with his retarded religious drivel.

As Winston Churchill once said, "a fanatic is one who can't change
his mind and won't change the subject."

[Daniel]

On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 1:20:32 AM UTC-4, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>
> The funny thing about leftists is that ... [they] just can't help but to
> constantly bring it up ...

Absolutely, it's almost as annoying as watching the "less educated" referring
to a vast heterogeneity of people as "leftists", possibly including old style
socialists (but they probably don't know any), and definitely including the
CEO's of Google and Facebook, vegans that protest deer culls by Native
Americans, vegans that protest the presumptuousness of vegans protesting deer
culls by Native Americans, folks that cross to the left side of the street to
evade a skunk walking down the right side, etc.

Daniel

[bitrex]

The American Right is the party for people with no actual problems in
life and can't understand why someone wouldn't vote a bloviating,
washed-up reality TV star president simply for entertainment
value/enjoying it being upsetting to people they don't like

[woodb...@gmail.com]

The Republicans I know have problems. I was glad to
be able to vote for the Constitution Party candidate in 2016.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
http://webEbenezer.net

[Jerry Stuckle]

No, the American Right is the party that believes in the rule of law and
the Constitution.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[bitrex]

On 10/23/2017 10:09 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 6:19 PM, bitrex wrote:
>> On 10/23/2017 01:20 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>> Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>> Only if one is as moronic as the current american president.
>>>
>>> The funny thing about leftists is that they behave like their political
>>> opinions are their religion. They just can't help but to constantly
>>> bring it up in contexts that have absolutely nothing to do with
>>> politics. It's like that religious retard who keeps spamming this
>>> newsgroup with his retarded religious drivel.
>>>
>>> As Winston Churchill once said, "a fanatic is one who can't change
>>> his mind and won't change the subject."
>>>
>>
>> The American Right is the party for people with no actual problems in
>> life and can't understand why someone wouldn't vote a bloviating,
>> washed-up reality TV star president simply for entertainment
>> value/enjoying it being upsetting to people they don't like
>
> No, the American Right is the party that believes in the rule of law and
> the Constitution.
>

Oh. Where'd they go?

[bitrex]

If ~50 million Americans can say with a straight face that a rambling
geriatric former game show host is the top pick to "defend the
Constitution" then the only conclusion I can draw is that it's a
document not really worth defending.

Or like some revisionist historians have written that in essence the
Founding Fathers were liars and con-artists and didn't really believe in
any of the things that they were writing about, and the Constitution was
all an exercise in what we'd now call marketing or "public relations."

[Jerry Stuckle]

Right where they are supposed to be. The Right doesn't just ignore laws
it doesn't like.

[Scott Lurndal]

Iran-Contra?

[Gareth Owen]

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Iran-Contra?

Oh, you don't have to go that far back...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/lawmakers-call-out-trump-administration-for-russia-sanctions-delay/article/2010193
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/26/governors_respond_to_gay_marriage_ruling_texas_louisiana_mississippi_weighing.html
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/02/15/trump-tells-irs-not-to-enforce-obamacare-mandate/

[Scott Lurndal]

Or even the poor young lady in Texas this week. Took the courts to
get the right thing done.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Illegal aliens. Giving 4 billion dollars to an enemy government.
Storing classified information on insecure servers... And the list goes on.

[bitrex]

On 10/26/2017 04:49 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>>>>> No, the American Right is the party that believes in the rule of law
>>>>> and the Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh. Where'd they go?
>>>
>>> Right where they are supposed to be.  The Right doesn't just ignore laws
>>> it doesn't like.
>>>
>>
>> Iran-Contra?
>>
>
> Illegal aliens.  Giving 4 billion dollars to an enemy government.
> Storing classified information on insecure servers...  And the list goes
> on.

There are the good noble guys and the bad evil guys. The bad evil guys
are out to destroy America. The good guys fight for rule of law, the
Constitution, God, family, country, and all that is noble and true. If
only all the bad evil-doers were removed, perfection would be achieved
and peace and prosperity would reign for a thousand years.

I understand.

[Jerry Stuckle]

And how is any of that a violation of laws? Unlike Obama's executive
orders? Or Clinton's illegal (and insecure) mail server? Or CLINTON'S
campaign's collusion with the Russians?

Nope. Not even close. Trump is at least attempting to follow the law -
the State Department hasn't given him information he needs for the
sanctions (never mind that Congress's "mandate" is not a law and is
arguably an infringement on the separation of powers). Governors also
have free speech rights, and are free to have their own opinions. None
of that suggests they are going against the Supreme Court - even if they
don't agree with it. And once again, the ObamaCare "mandate" is a
reversal of an Executive Order by Obama, not a law.

Sorry. None of your references show what you would like to believe.

[Jerry Stuckle]

And exactly which law did Trump violate?

[bitrex]

On 10/26/2017 09:19 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/25/2017 2:13 PM, Gareth Owen wrote:
>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> Iran-Contra?
>>
>> Oh, you don't have to go that far back...
>> http://www.weeklystandard.com/lawmakers-call-out-trump-administration-for-russia-sanctions-delay/article/2010193
>>
>> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/26/governors_respond_to_gay_marriage_ruling_texas_louisiana_mississippi_weighing.html
>>
>> https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/02/15/trump-tells-irs-not-to-enforce-obamacare-mandate/
>>
>>
>
> And how is any of that a violation of laws?  Unlike Obama's executive
> orders?  Or Clinton's illegal (and insecure) mail server?  Or CLINTON'S
> campaign's collusion with the Russians?

The CIA under Bush, Obama, and Trump have been flying drone strikes in
and out of six sovereign countries at last count, violating US and
international law every day of the week for years, btw.

Or maybe not. AFAIK they all said their DOJ lawyers checked it all out
and it's fine. Won't release the documents, though.

[David Brown]

Folks, how about we keep the local politics out of c.l.c++? Perhaps
move it to sci.electronics.design, where it belongs (but for the love of
the FSM, please do /not/ cross-post it there!).

[Jerry Stuckle]

Exactly which laws are violated by drone strikes against enemy
combatants? As opposed to killing U.S. citizens without a trial - which
is against U.S. law.

[bitrex]

Indeed, it relies on how the DOJ interprets the term "enemy combatant."
In practice it seems to be the way it is defined is "Any foreign
national the President determines to be." That's the way it seems
outside the loop at least; the DOJ claims otherwise and that they have
had their lawyers look it all over and it's fine.

Needing to make calls like that and keep rulings secret may be something
which must be done from time to time out of necessity; but trying to
make the case that when one defines the terms of the laws the way one
wants them to be without independent oversight, and then they adhere to
the "rule of law" which they defined themselves, and to claim that too
as being a noble and respectable enterprise, is a very hard sell.

Wake me up when a presidential candidate of any political party shows up
who even promises to constrain the power of the executive branch in
theory, rather than expand it in practice. Then I'll believe this "rule
of law" stuff.

[bitrex]

There's always Stack Overflow where instead of local politics you just
get reputation farmers trying to close your question every 5 seconds and
making comments like "but WHY would you want to do that" and "*sigh*.
you're clearly not familiar with the latest C++17 std::blarsharglap,
unbelievable you would be asking this question"

[David Brown]

Are you trying to say that it is okay to discuss politics here in a C++
newsgroup because another discussion arena has different problems?

Please just drop the topic here - we have enough off-topic stuff already
(and at least the religious folk can argue that - assuming they are
right - their topic is important and that we can all do something about it).

In particular, /don't/ argue with Jerry Stuckle. It is pointless,
whether it is on topic or not. If you /really/ want to discuss this
more, invite Jerry to a new thread in sci.electronics.design where he
can compete in pissing contests with the other grumpy old right-wing
has-beens. (Yes, I know I sometimes take part in such threads in s.e.d.
- they are on-topic in that group.)

I know you are interested in C++, and have good ideas and good
questions. But by posting here about politics, you are simply going to
get yourself in the killfiles of the people you would want to talk to.

[bitrex]

On 10/27/2017 10:36 AM, David Brown wrote:

> Are you trying to say that it is okay to discuss politics here in a C++
> newsgroup because another discussion arena has different problems?
>
> Please just drop the topic here - we have enough off-topic stuff already
> (and at least the religious folk can argue that - assuming they are
> right - their topic is important and that we can all do something about it).
>
> In particular, /don't/ argue with Jerry Stuckle. It is pointless,
> whether it is on topic or not.

Good to know

> If you /really/ want to discuss this
> more, invite Jerry to a new thread in sci.electronics.design where he
> can compete in pissing contests with the other grumpy old right-wing
> has-beens. (Yes, I know I sometimes take part in such threads in s.e.d.
> - they are on-topic in that group.)

Accurate

> I know you are interested in C++, and have good ideas and good
> questions. But by posting here about politics, you are simply going to
> get yourself in the killfiles of the people you would want to talk to.

Fair enough

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 10/27/2017 10:36 AM, David Brown wrote:

> On 27/10/17 16:24, bitrex wrote:
>> On 10/27/2017 02:32 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Folks, how about we keep the local politics out of c.l.c++? Perhaps
>>> move it to sci.electronics.design, where it belongs (but for the love of
>>> the FSM, please do /not/ cross-post it there!).
>>>
>>
>> There's always Stack Overflow where instead of local politics you just
>> get reputation farmers trying to close your question every 5 seconds and
>> making comments like "but WHY would you want to do that" and "*sigh*.
>> you're clearly not familiar with the latest C++17 std::blarsharglap,
>> unbelievable you would be asking this question"
>
> Are you trying to say that it is okay to discuss politics here in a C++
> newsgroup because another discussion arena has different problems?
>
> Please just drop the topic here - we have enough off-topic stuff already
> (and at least the religious folk can argue that - assuming they are
> right - their topic is important and that we can all do something about it).
>
> In particular, /don't/ argue with Jerry Stuckle. It is pointless,
> whether it is on topic or not. If you /really/ want to discuss this
> more, invite Jerry to a new thread in sci.electronics.design where he
> can compete in pissing contests with the other grumpy old right-wing
> has-beens. (Yes, I know I sometimes take part in such threads in s.e.d.
> - they are on-topic in that group.)
>

LOL, it's pointless when you don't have any facts to support your position.

> I know you are interested in C++, and have good ideas and good
> questions. But by posting here about politics, you are simply going to
> get yourself in the killfiles of the people you would want to talk to.
>
>

[Jerry Stuckle]

Wake up. He's in office right now. And maybe while you're at it, you
can answer my questions - which you didn't.

[Öö Tiib]

Oh. You mean huge rocket fellow? Making devices that drive humans to
extinction has never violated any laws. Like any other quality
engineering work does not violate any laws. Using those does not also
violate any laws. None of international treaties bans usage of killer
robots and so everybody are now making those in hurry.
Killer robots will assure our extinction as species autonomously,
without need of any human to press any buttons. No law will be
violated.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Oh, you mean the guy that Obama allowed to get nuclear weapons and
intercontinental ballistic missiles.

But then you didn't answer my question either - not that I ever expected
you to.

[Juha Nieminen]

Thanks for proving my point.

[Scott Lurndal]

Drumpf has already issued twice as many executive orders than
either of his immediate predecessors on an annual basis. Perhaps your
perception of reality filter is too firmly in place to see
the reality of the moron-in-chief?

[Cholo Lennon]

On 27/10/17 10:35, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/26/2017 11:46 PM, bitrex wrote:
>> On 10/26/2017 09:19 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2017 2:13 PM, Gareth Owen wrote:
>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Iran-Contra?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, you don't have to go that far back...
>>>> http://www.weeklystandard.com/lawmakers-call-out-trump-administration-for-russia-sanctions-delay/article/2010193
>>>>
>>>> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/26/governors_respond_to_gay_marriage_ruling_texas_louisiana_mississippi_weighing.html
>>>>
>>>> https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/02/15/trump-tells-irs-not-to-enforce-obamacare-mandate/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And how is any of that a violation of laws?  Unlike Obama's executive
>>> orders?  Or Clinton's illegal (and insecure) mail server?  Or
>>> CLINTON'S campaign's collusion with the Russians?
>>
>> The CIA under Bush, Obama, and Trump have been flying drone strikes in
>> and out of six sovereign countries at last count, violating US and
>> international law every day of the week for years, btw.
>>
>> Or maybe not. AFAIK they all said their DOJ lawyers checked it all out
>> and it's fine. Won't release the documents, though.
>
> Exactly which laws are violated by drone strikes against enemy
> combatants?

That's the problem, you Americans see "enemies" all over the world (with
a well known exceptions, of course, not all countries are lapdogs).
You're the real threat to world peace :-(

> As opposed to killing U.S. citizens without a trial - which
> is against U.S. law.

Haha, your ignorance or blindness about how Americans operate (read it
as "torture & kill without a trial") around the world is surprising.


--
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG

[Jerry Stuckle]

Yup, and most of those were rolling back Obama's illegal executive
orders. It's going to take a while to unwind 8 years of Obama's damage.

[Jerry Stuckle]

The American Right is the party of people who work and take
responsibility for their actions, instead of trying to blame the other
guy for everything. That's why we elected an Executive to run the
Executive Branch of the government. He's draining the swamp - and
Democrats can't stand to see their freebies going away.

Trump isn't a TV star. He is a real executive who has employed tens of
thousands (or more) people around the world and added billions to the
world's economy. Unlike the previous President who's only jobs were to
be on the board of a Non-Profit and a politician.