Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
about inheritance
53 views
Skip to first unread message
fir
Dec 13, 2019, 12:04:22 PM12/13/19
to
im a c man and dislike c++, i remember i was learning c++ a bot about year 2001 or so and
one things about the pooffed tutaorials and people about it was 'inheritance'
i disliked it a alot then as it seemed shit to me as looking from c perspectiev of structures and arrays manegement but i van add something i noticed on it in that span of years)probably some people noticed that but most if not all c++ people i met like was unaware of this realization of me:
if you want to catologue some things and make some net/graph of some dependencies what fives you inheritance is crap (abstracting even of the low lewel realization of it) this is becouse say, take some things that are especially good to make some organization of it say big set of books (or some more writhings like boook+articles+papers+etc like in pdf form),
or take set of musical records (songs, or variouse mp3) or set of youtube videos, or what else you can take
what you need to desctibe it and make it searchable. accesible is rather a tag, then you may and its ok to do give some relations to this tags itself but those tahs like are by nature multidimensional and cross itself i mean if you wwant to catalogue books one tag will be proper author of it, other tah will be say year of making it, other tag will be kind of it, then you may give relation of this tag like say this author belongs to tag of 'european authors' or this date belongs to 19-th century and so on but this thing is for sure not what inheritance gives you but some far more proper kind of typization/classification and if so this is what progarmming languages may eventually need - and now i realize it as clearly as i wrote it here , bac then in 2001 or so i only realized that thic c++ inheritance shit is not logiacally well done
(and what i write here i realized few years ago, but forgot to mention it)
one things about the pooffed tutaorials and people about it was 'inheritance'
i disliked it a alot then as it seemed shit to me as looking from c perspectiev of structures and arrays manegement but i van add something i noticed on it in that span of years)probably some people noticed that but most if not all c++ people i met like was unaware of this realization of me:
if you want to catologue some things and make some net/graph of some dependencies what fives you inheritance is crap (abstracting even of the low lewel realization of it) this is becouse say, take some things that are especially good to make some organization of it say big set of books (or some more writhings like boook+articles+papers+etc like in pdf form),
or take set of musical records (songs, or variouse mp3) or set of youtube videos, or what else you can take
what you need to desctibe it and make it searchable. accesible is rather a tag, then you may and its ok to do give some relations to this tags itself but those tahs like are by nature multidimensional and cross itself i mean if you wwant to catalogue books one tag will be proper author of it, other tah will be say year of making it, other tag will be kind of it, then you may give relation of this tag like say this author belongs to tag of 'european authors' or this date belongs to 19-th century and so on but this thing is for sure not what inheritance gives you but some far more proper kind of typization/classification and if so this is what progarmming languages may eventually need - and now i realize it as clearly as i wrote it here , bac then in 2001 or so i only realized that thic c++ inheritance shit is not logiacally well done
(and what i write here i realized few years ago, but forgot to mention it)
fir
Dec 13, 2019, 12:13:17 PM12/13/19
to
i added some commas, as it maybe was to weak readable:, this is sligjtly corrected form:
im a c man and dislike c++, i remember i was learning c++ a bit about year 2001 or so and
one things about the pooffed tutorials and people about it was 'inheritance'
i disliked it a alot then as it seemed shit to me as looking from c perspective of structures and arrays manegement but i can add something i noticed on it in that span of years) probably some people noticed that, but most, if not all, c++ people i met, like was unaware of this realization of me:
if you want to catologue some things and make some net/graph of some dependencies what gives you inheritance is crap (abstracting even of the low lewel realization of it) this is becouse, say, take some things that are especially good to make some organization of it say big set of books (or some more writhings like boook+articles+papers+etc like in pdf form),
im a c man and dislike c++, i remember i was learning c++ a bit about year 2001 or so and
one things about the pooffed tutorials and people about it was 'inheritance'
i disliked it a alot then as it seemed shit to me as looking from c perspective of structures and arrays manegement but i can add something i noticed on it in that span of years) probably some people noticed that, but most, if not all, c++ people i met, like was unaware of this realization of me:
if you want to catologue some things and make some net/graph of some dependencies what gives you inheritance is crap (abstracting even of the low lewel realization of it) this is becouse, say, take some things that are especially good to make some organization of it say big set of books (or some more writhings like boook+articles+papers+etc like in pdf form),
or take set of musical records (songs, or variouse mp3) or set of youtube videos, or what else you can take
what you need to desctibe it and make it searchable/ accesible is rather a tag, then you may (and its ok to do it) give some relations to this tags itself, but those tags are by nature multidimensional and cross itself; i mean if you wwant to catalogue books one tag will be proper author of it, other tag will be, say, year of making it, other tag will be kind of it; then you may give relation of this tag like, say, this author belongs to tag of 'european authors' or this date belongs to 19-th century and so on, but this thing is for sure not what inheritance gives you but some far more proper kind of typization/classification and, if so, this is what progarmming languages may eventually need - and now i realize it as clearly as i wrote it here , back then, in 2001 or so i only realized that this c++ inheritance shit is not logiacally well done
Bonita Montero
Dec 13, 2019, 12:18:02 PM12/13/19
to
People that can't see the massive productivity- and
maintainability-advantages of C++ over C can't program.
maintainability-advantages of C++ over C can't program.
fir
Dec 13, 2019, 12:33:48 PM12/13/19
to
W dniu piątek, 13 grudnia 2019 18:18:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Bonita Montero napisał:
> People that can't see the massive productivity- and
> maintainability-advantages of C++ over C can't program.
lol...
> People that can't see the massive productivity- and
> maintainability-advantages of C++ over C can't program.
for me its only dependency od some trash dlls of c++ runtime, and also a lot of troubles with incompatible binaries even amongts the sme compilers in same versions (+ a lot of boring things to spare time on)
(but i dont want to discuss it , the post is about inheritance)
Thiago Adams
Dec 13, 2019, 3:43:16 PM12/13/19
to
On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 2:18:02 PM UTC-3, Bonita Montero wrote:
> People that can't see the massive productivity- and
> maintainability-advantages of C++ over C can't program.
You can open a new topic about that and give us more
> People that can't see the massive productivity- and
> maintainability-advantages of C++ over C can't program.
details.
Barry Schwarz
Dec 13, 2019, 5:31:05 PM12/13/19
to
no idea what my requirements are telling me what tools I should be
using.
--
Remove del for email
Sam
Dec 13, 2019, 7:45:01 PM12/13/19
to
fir writes:
> im a c man and dislike c++, i remember i was learning c++ a bot about year
> 2001 or so and
If you disliked C++ in 2001, you will definitely hate it today. C++ today is
> im a c man and dislike c++, i remember i was learning c++ a bot about year
> 2001 or so and
about 3-5 bigger than it was back then, in terms of sheer complexity and
difficulties.
Behold the complete trainwreck that the C++ tag on stackoverflow.com. It's
an amazing sight to behold, almost every day.
So, save yourself the trouble, and forget about learning C++. It won't work
for you.
But thanks for stopping by, and have a nice day.
> what you need to desctibe it and make it searchable. accesible is rather a
> tag, then you may and its ok to do give some relations to this tags itself
> but those tahs like are by nature multidimensional and cross itself i mean
surrounding paragraphs. Whatever you're suffering from, I hope you feel
better someday.
Paavo Helde
Dec 14, 2019, 3:55:35 AM12/14/19
to
On 14.12.2019 2:44, Sam wrote:
different ways. And by some reason he thinks this is somehow relevant
for C++ inheritance, probably because his only knowledge of C++ comes
from a crappy tutorial which had some silly animal-dog-duck example.
In C++ inheritance is a special coding technique which might be useful
in some specific scenarios (btw, classification of things is not such a
scenario), but it's just one tool among many.
I find it ironic that while OP finds C language superior because it does
not have inheritance, my last usage of inheritance was directly related
to a C program (Python). I coded a Python extension module defining an
extension Python type. The Python manuals say that an extension Python
type must be defined by a struct which has the "base class" PyObject in
the beginning. There are some nifty macros for doing that:
typedef struct {
PyObject_HEAD
/* Type-specific fields go here. */
} CustomObject;
which expands to
typedef struct {
PyObject ob_base;
/* Type-specific fields go here. */
} CustomObject;
However, doing it this way would mean to litter my code with nasty
reinterpret_casts because the PyObject and CustomObject are unrelated
types, but one needs to cast between pointers to them at every step. So
I used C++ inheritance instead:
struct CustomObject : PyObject {
/* Type-specific fields go here. */
};
Voila! No cast to PyObject needed any more, and a well-defined
static_cast instead of error-prone reinterpret_cast in the other direction.
I guess the bottom line is that languages lacking inheritance are bound
to reinvent it in ugly ways.
> fir writes:
>
>
>> what you need to desctibe it and make it searchable. accesible is
>> rather a tag, then you may and its ok to do give some relations to
>> this tags itself but those tahs like are by nature multidimensional
>> and cross itself i mean
>
> I could not make any heads or tails of this stream of consciousness, in
> the surrounding paragraphs. Whatever you're suffering from, I hope you
> feel better someday.
I suspect he might have just discovered that one can classify things in
>
>
>> what you need to desctibe it and make it searchable. accesible is
>> rather a tag, then you may and its ok to do give some relations to
>> this tags itself but those tahs like are by nature multidimensional
>> and cross itself i mean
>
> I could not make any heads or tails of this stream of consciousness, in
> the surrounding paragraphs. Whatever you're suffering from, I hope you
> feel better someday.
different ways. And by some reason he thinks this is somehow relevant
for C++ inheritance, probably because his only knowledge of C++ comes
from a crappy tutorial which had some silly animal-dog-duck example.
In C++ inheritance is a special coding technique which might be useful
in some specific scenarios (btw, classification of things is not such a
scenario), but it's just one tool among many.
I find it ironic that while OP finds C language superior because it does
not have inheritance, my last usage of inheritance was directly related
to a C program (Python). I coded a Python extension module defining an
extension Python type. The Python manuals say that an extension Python
type must be defined by a struct which has the "base class" PyObject in
the beginning. There are some nifty macros for doing that:
typedef struct {
PyObject_HEAD
/* Type-specific fields go here. */
} CustomObject;
which expands to
typedef struct {
PyObject ob_base;
/* Type-specific fields go here. */
} CustomObject;
However, doing it this way would mean to litter my code with nasty
reinterpret_casts because the PyObject and CustomObject are unrelated
types, but one needs to cast between pointers to them at every step. So
I used C++ inheritance instead:
struct CustomObject : PyObject {
/* Type-specific fields go here. */
};
Voila! No cast to PyObject needed any more, and a well-defined
static_cast instead of error-prone reinterpret_cast in the other direction.
I guess the bottom line is that languages lacking inheritance are bound
to reinvent it in ugly ways.
fir
Dec 14, 2019, 6:01:56 AM12/14/19
to
now
generally such posts only purpose informing me that authors are idiots acknowledge it 3d time
im may inform you in exchange im totally indeferrent for idiots of that type
fir
Dec 14, 2019, 6:08:20 AM12/14/19
to
W dniu sobota, 14 grudnia 2019 09:55:35 UTC+1 użytkownik Paavo Helde napisał:
> On 14.12.2019 2:44, Sam wrote:
> > fir writes:
> >
> >
> >> what you need to desctibe it and make it searchable. accesible is
> >> rather a tag, then you may and its ok to do give some relations to
> >> this tags itself but those tahs like are by nature multidimensional
> >> and cross itself i mean
> >
> > I could not make any heads or tails of this stream of consciousness, in
> > the surrounding paragraphs. Whatever you're suffering from, I hope you
> > feel better someday.
>
> I suspect he might have just discovered that one can classify things in
> different ways. And by some reason he thinks this is somehow relevant
> for C++ inheritance, probably because his only knowledge of C++ comes
> from a crappy tutorial which had some silly animal-dog-duck example.
>
> In C++ inheritance is a special coding technique which might be useful
> in some specific scenarios (btw, classification of things is not such a
> scenario), but it's just one tool among many.
>
> I find it ironic that while OP finds C language superior because it does
> not have inheritance,
this is becouse c has not such kind of non-logically-complete trash like here
> On 14.12.2019 2:44, Sam wrote:
> > fir writes:
> >
> >
> >> what you need to desctibe it and make it searchable. accesible is
> >> rather a tag, then you may and its ok to do give some relations to
> >> this tags itself but those tahs like are by nature multidimensional
> >> and cross itself i mean
> >
> > I could not make any heads or tails of this stream of consciousness, in
> > the surrounding paragraphs. Whatever you're suffering from, I hope you
> > feel better someday.
>
> I suspect he might have just discovered that one can classify things in
> different ways. And by some reason he thinks this is somehow relevant
> for C++ inheritance, probably because his only knowledge of C++ comes
> from a crappy tutorial which had some silly animal-dog-duck example.
>
> In C++ inheritance is a special coding technique which might be useful
> in some specific scenarios (btw, classification of things is not such a
> scenario), but it's just one tool among many.
>
> I find it ironic that while OP finds C language superior because it does
> not have inheritance,
there are also no 'different ways of classifications' here (in that post),
simply that tree-like classification/organisation is not complete thus is flawed and kinda nonsense
(it dont applies only to c++ but for all other languages using it the same 1-tree-like way) (more proper way is what i described some crossed-multi-tree way (based on tags and its relations), though maybe even some extension over it may be even better (im not sure))
Sam
Dec 14, 2019, 8:34:46 AM12/14/19
to
Paavo Helde writes:
> I find it ironic that while OP finds C language superior because it does not
> have inheritance, my last usage of inheritance was directly related to a C
> program (Python). I coded a Python extension module defining an extension
> Python type. The Python manuals say that an extension Python type must be
> defined by a struct which has the "base class" PyObject in the beginning.
Not just Python.
> I find it ironic that while OP finds C language superior because it does not
> have inheritance, my last usage of inheritance was directly related to a C
> program (Python). I coded a Python extension module defining an extension
> Python type. The Python manuals say that an extension Python type must be
> defined by a struct which has the "base class" PyObject in the beginning.
Every substantial C library ends up reinventing inheritance in its own way.
People's Exhibit A: GTK.
Sam
Dec 14, 2019, 8:37:31 AM12/14/19
to
fir writes:
> youre not understending this becouse you got weak head, and yopur hopes on
> me acknowledge that what i know over 100%
> now
"Over 100%" of nothing is still nothing, according to basic algebra.
> youre not understending this becouse you got weak head, and yopur hopes on
> me acknowledge that what i know over 100%
> now
> generally such posts only purpose informing me that authors are idiots
> acknowledge it 3d time
>
> im may inform you in exchange im totally indeferrent for idiots of that type
keyboard, know when to use it, and the various appropriate punctuations
symbols. At least we can agree on that?
fir
Dec 14, 2019, 11:19:31 AM12/14/19
to
Sam
Dec 14, 2019, 11:55:51 AM12/14/19
to
fir writes:
> shure not visibly and extremly stupid fella, dont want to wasty my time with
> 1q 50 random moron oer the net
I hear there's a remake of "The Holy Grail" in the works. You should
> shure not visibly and extremly stupid fella, dont want to wasty my time with
> 1q 50 random moron oer the net
audition for the role of The Black Knight. You'll be a natural.
bol...@nowhere.co.uk
Dec 14, 2019, 12:22:20 PM12/14/19
to
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 11:55:40 -0500
Sam <s...@email-scan.com> wrote:
>This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
>your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
>The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
>To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
>software that supports modern Internet standards.
Blah blah blah. 31 lines of noise to wrap 5 lines of ascii text which doesn't
even require MIME. And why sign your posts anyway? Who on earth do you think
will ever check?
Sam <s...@email-scan.com> wrote:
>This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
>your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
>The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
>To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
>software that supports modern Internet standards.
Blah blah blah. 31 lines of noise to wrap 5 lines of ascii text which doesn't
even require MIME. And why sign your posts anyway? Who on earth do you think
will ever check?
Öö Tiib
Dec 14, 2019, 1:03:05 PM12/14/19
to
lot of bit crunching to verify the signatures. Hmm. Have you ever heard of
such a thing like "software"?
0 new messages