Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Journals on C++

278 views
Skip to first unread message

Vlad from Moscow

unread,
Jan 27, 2015, 12:45:09 PM1/27/15
to
As it is known Dr.Dobb's ceased to exist. What other well-known journals do sxist where articles on C++ are published?

Lynn McGuire

unread,
Jan 27, 2015, 1:04:25 PM1/27/15
to
On 1/27/2015 11:44 AM, Vlad from Moscow wrote:
> As it is known Dr.Dobb's ceased to exist. What other well-known journals do sxist where articles on C++ are published?

Dr. Dobbs has gone virtual at:
http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp

MSDN magazine talks about C++ regularly.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/default.aspx

Lynn





Vlad from Moscow

unread,
Jan 27, 2015, 1:41:58 PM1/27/15
to
Thanks, Lynn.

I already knew anout these journals.
However it is funny that the page of MSDN you have referenced contains menu "Submit an Article". There is no such menu in Russian page of MSDN. :)

Andrey Karpov

unread,
Jan 29, 2015, 12:41:58 PM1/29/15
to
If the article is in Russian it can be published on http://habrahabr.ru/. We might be able to publish it on http://www.viva64.com/. However, that depends on the article topic. I would suggest that you e-mail me: karpov [@] viva64.com. I will try to help and advise.

Vlad from Moscow

unread,
Jan 29, 2015, 1:44:42 PM1/29/15
to
On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 8:41:58 PM UTC+3, Andrey Karpov wrote:
> If the article is in Russian it can be published on http://habrahabr.ru/. We might be able to publish it on http://www.viva64.com/. However, that depends on the article topic. I would suggest that you e-mail me: karpov [@] viva64.com. I will try to help and advise.

The article is written in bad Englich.:) Because the article contains at least three proposals to the C++ Standard I would prefer a journal with a large auditoria that it could be discussed more detailly.

Andrey Karpov

unread,
Jan 29, 2015, 2:49:37 PM1/29/15
to
> The article is written in bad Englich.:) Because the article contains at least three proposals to the C++ Standard I would prefer a journal with a large auditoria that it could be discussed more detailly.

We can help translate the article. Then post it on the site viva64.com. After that, you can post a link on site isocpp.org. Perhaps article will interest readers and there will be a discussion.

Proposes move communication to e-mail.

jacob navia

unread,
Jan 29, 2015, 4:59:35 PM1/29/15
to
Le 27/01/2015 19:04, Lynn McGuire a écrit :
> Dr. Dobbs has gone virtual at:
> http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp

~ $ ping www.drdobbs.com
PING www.drdobbs.com (192.155.48.108): 56 data bytes
Request timeout for icmp_seq 0
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1
Request timeout for icmp_seq 2
Request timeout for icmp_seq 3
Request timeout for icmp_seq 4
Request timeout for icmp_seq 5
Request timeout for icmp_seq 6
Request timeout for icmp_seq 7
Request timeout for icmp_seq 8
Request timeout for icmp_seq 9
Request timeout for icmp_seq 10
Request timeout for icmp_seq 11
^C
--- www.drdobbs.com ping statistics ---
13 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss
~ $

How sad is all this. I remember the first numbers of that magazine, the
sense of wonder at the small BASIC listings, the assembler stuff, and
the flames section in the last page...

Modern programmers do not read this kind of stuff. No hacking around
now, no assembler, there is no more exciting stuff, just a job from nine
to five pushing some buttons in the last IDE.

Not even nostalgia is what it used to be...


:-)

Victor Bazarov

unread,
Jan 29, 2015, 5:35:17 PM1/29/15
to
On 1/29/2015 4:59 PM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 27/01/2015 19:04, Lynn McGuire a écrit :
>> Dr. Dobbs has gone virtual at:
>> http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp
>
> ~ $ ping www.drdobbs.com
> PING www.drdobbs.com (192.155.48.108): 56 data bytes
> Request timeout for icmp_seq 0
> Request timeout for icmp_seq 1
> Request timeout for icmp_seq 2
> Request timeout for icmp_seq 3
> Request timeout for icmp_seq 4
> Request timeout for icmp_seq 5
> Request timeout for icmp_seq 6
> Request timeout for icmp_seq 7
> Request timeout for icmp_seq 8
> Request timeout for icmp_seq 9
> Request timeout for icmp_seq 10
> Request timeout for icmp_seq 11
> ^C
> --- www.drdobbs.com ping statistics ---
> 13 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss
> ~ $
>
> How sad is all this.

I just clicked on the link provided by Thunderbird in that listing of
yours and got the front page, from which I then navigated to

http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/farewell-dr-dobbs/240169421

(it's a link, needs to be in one line), where I read "... that there
will be no new content after year end; however, all current content will
be accessible and links to existing Dr. Dobb's articles will continue to
work correctly."

A web server doesn't necessarily answer to control messages ("pings"),
as you may already know. But the content is there.

> I remember the first numbers of that magazine, the
> sense of wonder at the small BASIC listings, the assembler stuff, and
> the flames section in the last page...
>
> Modern programmers do not read this kind of stuff. No hacking around
> now, no assembler, there is no more exciting stuff, just a job from nine
> to five pushing some buttons in the last IDE.
>
> Not even nostalgia is what it used to be...

Not to mention that perhaps we ourselves have changed a bit as well... B-)

> :-)

V
--
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

Scott Lurndal

unread,
Jan 30, 2015, 11:29:45 AM1/30/15
to
Victor Bazarov <v.ba...@comcast.invalid> writes:
>On 1/29/2015 4:59 PM, jacob navia wrote:
>> Le 27/01/2015 19:04, Lynn McGuire a écrit :
>>> Dr. Dobbs has gone virtual at:
>>> http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp
>>
>> ~ $ ping www.drdobbs.com
>> PING www.drdobbs.com (192.155.48.108): 56 data bytes
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 0
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 1
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 2
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 3
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 4
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 5
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 6
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 7
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 8
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 9
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 10
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 11
>> ^C
>> --- www.drdobbs.com ping statistics ---
>> 13 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss
>> ~ $
>>
>> How sad is all this.
>
."
>
>A web server doesn't necessarily answer to control messages ("pings"),
>as you may already know. But the content is there.

In fact, ICMP packets are almost universally blocked at the
edge ingress gateway, for very good reasons. The yahoo servers
are a notable exception.

Lynn McGuire

unread,
Jan 30, 2015, 1:53:32 PM1/30/15
to
C:\dii>ping google.com

Pinging google.com [64.233.168.101] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 64.233.168.101: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=42
Reply from 64.233.168.101: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=42
Reply from 64.233.168.101: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=42
Reply from 64.233.168.101: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=42

Ping statistics for 64.233.168.101:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 20ms, Maximum = 21ms, Average = 20ms

Lynn


woodb...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 30, 2015, 2:16:08 PM1/30/15
to
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
> C:\dii>ping google.com
>
> Pinging google.com [64.233.168.101] with 32 bytes of data:
> Reply from 64.233.168.101: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=42
> Reply from 64.233.168.101: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=42
> Reply from 64.233.168.101: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=42
> Reply from 64.233.168.101: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=42
>
> Ping statistics for 64.233.168.101:
> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
> Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
> Minimum = 20ms, Maximum = 21ms, Average = 20ms
>
> Lynn


I can ping wnd.com and twitter.com.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

Mr Flibble

unread,
Jan 30, 2015, 6:42:08 PM1/30/15
to
wnd.com Brian? Really? Worse than Fox News mate; even I know this and I
don't live in America. It might help if you get over this "God" delusion.

/Flibble

Jorgen Grahn

unread,
Jan 31, 2015, 2:53:27 AM1/31/15
to
On Fri, 2015-01-30, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 1/30/2015 10:29 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Victor Bazarov <v.ba...@comcast.invalid> writes:
...
>>> A web server doesn't necessarily answer to control messages ("pings"),
>>> as you may already know. But the content is there.
>>
>> In fact, ICMP packets are almost universally blocked at the
>> edge ingress gateway, for very good reasons. The yahoo servers
>> are a notable exception.
>
> C:\dii>ping google.com
>
> Pinging google.com [64.233.168.101] with 32 bytes of data:
> Reply from 64.233.168.101: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=42

Not to mention there's a whole bunch of ICMP messages apart from Echo
Request (ping). Some of them are vital if you want IPv4 to work
properly, so I don't think anyone blocks the whole ICMP protocol.

/Jorgen

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

Martijn Lievaart

unread,
Feb 8, 2015, 3:26:00 PM2/8/15
to
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:29:33 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> In fact, ICMP packets are almost universally blocked at the edge ingress
> gateway, for very good reasons. The yahoo servers are a notable
> exception.

In fact, people are starting to see blocking ping is a rather useless
measure when you reply to tcp/syn on port 80. Those 'very good reasons'
may have been good 20 years ago, but are just historic artifacts at best
today.

M4

P.S. My current preferences for Internet facing hosts.

Allow icmp-host-unreachable-fragmentation-needed-but-packet-to-big
(that's not a preference, that is a must).

Allow icmp-echo and reply.

Block all other ICMP.


Martijn Lievaart

unread,
Feb 8, 2015, 3:26:00 PM2/8/15
to
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 07:53:16 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:

> Not to mention there's a whole bunch of ICMP messages apart from Echo
> Request (ping). Some of them are vital if you want IPv4 to work
> properly, so I don't think anyone blocks the whole ICMP protocol.

Most people get it right today. The firewall software of today silently
does the right thing, it's actually hard today to do it wrong.

Not that people don't try....

M4

Vlad from Moscow

unread,
Feb 14, 2015, 5:16:17 AM2/14/15
to
Maybe it is interesting what you are discussing but my question aboun C/C++ journals.:)
0 new messages