Visual C++ Version 6 (Visual Studio 98)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I found a copy on Amazon.com for $44. I went ahead
and bought it. I did so because the edit-and-continue
compiler in that version is nearly instantaneous. Such
makes for very swift debugging. Code change, and press
F10 to continue with scarcely a pause. Desirable.

So I will use VS2008 for most development as it has
better editing features.

And MSDEV98 and VC++ 6 for debugging.

Should be getting it next week.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[Victor Bazarov]

On 9/13/2014 7:25 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I found a copy on Amazon.com for $44. I went ahead
> and bought it. I did so because the edit-and-continue

> compiler in that version is nearly instantaneous. [..]

Good for you. It is admirable that you manage to write your programs
without ever needing any language features that are missing from such an
old implementation. Make sure to let folks know that you're using a
prehistoric (in the sense of standardized language) compiler if you ever
find a need to ask for help, just to avoid a useless to you advice of
getting decent tools.

Best of luck!

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

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Should I also mention I'm using Windows 2000 Professional or Windows
Server 2003 in a VirtualBox environment under Linux 64?

I use those old, antiquated tools because they are exceedingly fast on
modern equipment, even when running under virtualization, while they
support the single most important debug tool I've ever encountered
(which is edit-and-continue, hands down the most handy debugging tool
available in terms of the speed of getting applications debugged. In
fact, I would rank it above everything else, which is why I am willing
to dip into old tools to have it go even faster).

[Mr Flibble]

VC++ 6.0 is NOT a C++ compiler; it will NOT compile modern C++ so is
more or less totally useless mate. VC++ 6.0 will not even compile C++98
nevermind C++03, C++11 or C++14.

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 12:00:17 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> VC++ 6.0 is NOT a C++ compiler; it will NOT compile modern C++ so is
> more or less totally useless mate. VC++ 6.0 will not even compile C++98
> nevermind C++03, C++11 or C++14.

It is the C/C++ compiler which comes with Visual Studio 98:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_C%2B%2B

"Visual C++ 6.0 (commonly known as VC6), which included MFC 6.0, was
released in 1998. The release was somewhat controversial since it did
not include an expected update to MFC. Visual C++ 6.0 is still quite
popular and often used to maintain legacy projects..."

-----
My code is very simple because in my experience simple code means far
easier long-term maintenance. And I'm prepared to work-around any issues
which arise in my code / coding style to gain the advantages present
in the nearly instantaneous edit-and-continue debugger environment.It is
xceedingly conducive to the way I code.

Generally speaking, the only C++ extensions I use are the remove of a
"struct" prefixes, single-line comments on everything, and the extra
casting requirements for for migrating pointers, such as casting malloc(),
as these document purposeful intent in the code and are desirable.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

-----
Options to compile as .C or .CPP:
/Tc<source file> compile file as .c
/Tp<source file> compile file as .cpp

-----
From the cl /? command line (80 column width):
c:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio\VC98\Bin>cl /?

Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 12.00.8168 for 80x86
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1984-1998. All rights reserved.

C/C++ COMPILER OPTIONS

-OPTIMIZATION-

/O1 minimize space /Op[-] improve floating-pt consistency
/O2 maximize speed /Os favor code space
/Oa assume no aliasing /Ot favor code speed
/Ob<n> inline expansion (default n=0) /Ow assume cross-function aliasing
/Od disable optimizations (default) /Ox maximum opts. (/Ogityb1 /Gs)
/Og enable global optimization /Oy[-] enable frame pointer omission
/Oi enable intrinsic functions

-CODE GENERATION-

/G3 optimize for 80386 /Gy separate functions for linker
/G4 optimize for 80486 /Ge force stack checking for all funcs
/G5 optimize for Pentium /Gs[num] disable stack checking calls
/G6 optimize for Pentium Pro /Gh enable hook function call
/GB optimize for blended model (default) /GR[-] enable C++ RTTI
/Gd __cdecl calling convention /GX[-] enable C++ EH (same as /EHsc)
/Gr __fastcall calling convention /Gi[-] enable incremental compilation
/Gz __stdcall calling convention /Gm[-] enable minimal rebuild
/GA optimize for Windows Application /EHs enable synchronous C++ EH
/GD optimize for Windows DLL /EHa enable asynchronous C++ EH
/Gf enable string pooling /EHc extern "C" defaults to nothrow
/GF enable read-only string pooling /QIfdiv[-] enable Pentium FDIV fix
/GZ enable runtime debug checks /QI0f[-] enable Pentium 0x0f fix

-OUTPUT FILES-

/Fa[file] name assembly listing file /Fo<file> name object file
/FA[sc] configure assembly listing /Fp<file> name precompiled header file
/Fd[file] name .PDB file /Fr[file] name source browser file
/Fe<file> name executable file /FR[file] name extended .SBR file
/Fm[file] name map file

-PREPROCESSOR-

/C don't strip comments /FI<file> name forced include file
/D<name>{=|#}<text> define macro /U<name> remove predefined macro
/E preprocess to stdout /u remove all predefined macros
/EP preprocess to stdout, no #line /I<dir> add to include search path
/P preprocess to file /X ignore "standard places"

-LANGUAGE-

/Zi enable debugging information /Zl omit default library name in .OBJ
/ZI enable Edit and Continue debug info /Zg generate function prototypes
/Z7 enable old-style debug info /Zs syntax check only
/Zd line number debugging info only /vd{0|1} disable/enable vtordisp
/Zp[n] pack structs on n-byte boundary /vm<x> type of pointers to members
/Za disable extensions (implies /Op) /noBool disable "bool" keyword
/Ze enable extensions (default)

-MISCELLANEOUS-

/?, /help print this help message /V<string> set version string
/c compile only, no link /w disable all warnings
/H<num> max external name length /W<n> set warning level (default n=1)
/J default char type is unsigned /WX treat warnings as errors
/nologo suppress copyright message /Yc[file] create .PCH file
/Tc<source file> compile file as .c /Yd put debug info in every .OBJ
/Tp<source file> compile file as .cpp /Yu[file] use .PCH file
/TC compile all files as .c /YX[file] automatic .PCH
/TP compile all files as .cpp /Zm<n> max memory alloc (% of default)

-LINKING-

/MD link with MSVCRT.LIB /MDd link with MSVCRTD.LIB debug lib
/ML link with LIBC.LIB /MLd link with LIBCD.LIB debug lib
/MT link with LIBCMT.LIB /MTd link with LIBCMTD.LIB debug lib
/LD Create .DLL /F<num> set stack size
/LDd Create .DLL debug libary /link [linker options and libraries]

[Mr Flibble]

On 13/09/2014 17:38, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Saturday, September 13, 2014 12:00:17 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> VC++ 6.0 is NOT a C++ compiler; it will NOT compile modern C++ so is
>> more or less totally useless mate. VC++ 6.0 will not even compile C++98
>> nevermind C++03, C++11 or C++14.
>
> It is the C/C++ compiler which comes with Visual Studio 98:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_C%2B%2B
>
> "Visual C++ 6.0 (commonly known as VC6), which included MFC 6.0, was
> released in 1998. The release was somewhat controversial since it did
> not include an expected update to MFC. Visual C++ 6.0 is still quite
> popular and often used to maintain legacy projects..."
>
> -----
> My code is very simple because in my experience simple code means far
> easier long-term maintenance. And I'm prepared to work-around any issues
> which arise in my code / coding style to gain the advantages present
> in the nearly instantaneous edit-and-continue debugger environment.It is
> xceedingly conducive to the way I code.
>
> Generally speaking, the only C++ extensions I use are the remove of a
> "struct" prefixes, single-line comments on everything, and the extra
> casting requirements for for migrating pointers, such as casting malloc(),
> as these document purposeful intent in the code and are desirable.

I know what VC++ is mate I have been using it since 1993 and I repeat:
VC++ 6.0 is NOT a C++ compiler it is a VC++ compiler.

You can only use VC++ 6.0 to compile Microsoft's ancient non-standard
compliant C++ dialect. It is totally fucking useless mate.

You think it is good because it is fast and cheap? Try g++ or clang
mate, they are free. Also VS2013 Express is also free.

/Flibble

[Bo Persson]

Seems like he is essentially using it as a C compiler, in which case it
is a half decent C89 compiler.


Bo Persson

[Mr Flibble]

If he is using it as a C compiler why is he posting to C++ newsgroup?

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 12:46:27 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> I know what VC++ is mate I have been using it since 1993 and I repeat:
> VC++ 6.0 is NOT a C++ compiler it is a VC++ compiler.

The title of this thread is "Visual C++ Version 6..."

> You can only use VC++ 6.0 to compile Microsoft's ancient non-standard

> compliant C++ dialect. It is totally ... useless mate.

Your attitude and tone is one of exceeding unnecessary harshness. I
am wondering why you are being so negative.

I have (generally speaking) only used MS's compilers since the late
80s as most all of my development has been in MS-DOS and Windows. I
have only used GCC compiler varieties since about 2007, and even then
I have found them to be obtuse and clunky for debugging given that you
cannot have edit-and-continue, and the debuggers I've seen are obtuse
as well.

As I say, my code is very simple. I do not use anything that should
break even their old compiler peculiarities, but if it does then I'm
content to change it because it is that simple.

This is not a matter that should concern you. And I am sorry if my
post has caused you to get so upset. I am really beside myself in that
you are so upset. I will say a prayer for you, /Flibble.

> You think it is good because it is fast and cheap? Try g++ or clang
> mate, they are free. Also VS2013 Express is also free.

I use GCC today (alongside VS2008) to help find bugs. GCC's warnings and
bug reporting are far superior to VS's. I will not use CLANG because it's
an Apple product, and I will use no Apple products. And I will not use
VS2010 or later because they are part of the Microsoft-post-Azure-announcement
company that refocused their future so that all software tracks and monitors
your use of it, and creates output files which are also part of their track-
and-monitor system. They, along with Apple, and a few others, are moving
people toward this "you must be known to us to use our tools" system, which
is part of a corralling people into pastures they can continually monitor
for whatever purposes. All such herding efforts are ill-conceived and are
harmful to people.

My Liberty Software Foundation and Visual FreePro Project were created to
combat that end. However, because I place Jesus Christ out front, being
the reason why I do not go into corporate-goals and corporate-ends, I have
not yet found anyone to help me with the coding.

These older tools are autonomous, stand-alone, they can operate completely
independently of any type of online presence or footprint, and they compile
software into the win32 environment, which is also autonomous and free from
the modern "calling home to mama" presentations we see in .NET and related
tools, technologies, servers, etc.

The old tools were freeer. I am choosing them for those reasons, even if
they don't live up to modern standards in coding. I am also writing my own
C compiler, called RDC, which will not include much of the current baggage
inherent in the C/C++ specs. It will be a Rapid Development Compiler, and
it will contain a lot of features designed to help the developer create
his code so that once it is up and running, it can then be ported to
another tool if it is so desired. However, a long-term goal is also to add
optimizers and features which will make it desirable to also leave the
code in RDC and go from there.

[Bo Persson]

Rick C. Hodgin skrev den 2014-09-13 18:38:
> On Saturday, September 13, 2014 12:00:17 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> VC++ 6.0 is NOT a C++ compiler; it will NOT compile modern C++ so is
>> more or less totally useless mate. VC++ 6.0 will not even compile C++98
>> nevermind C++03, C++11 or C++14.
>
> It is the C/C++ compiler which comes with Visual Studio 98:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_C%2B%2B
>
> "Visual C++ 6.0 (commonly known as VC6), which included MFC 6.0, was
> released in 1998. The release was somewhat controversial since it did
> not include an expected update to MFC. Visual C++ 6.0 is still quite
> popular and often used to maintain legacy projects..."
>

Despite its 1998 release date, it was released before the C++98 standard
and made very few attempts to comply with that.

Other unfortunate circumstances caused the C++ standard library to be
essentially the same as the library in VC 5.0.

So, for the last 10 years, using VC6 as a C++ compiler has NOT been a
good idea.

One reason for it to become "popular" is that it took a whole 5 years
before MS released a better compiler, VS2003 (please let's just forget
about the 2002 Managed Extensions).


Bo Persson

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Because it is a C++ compiler even if it has some Microsoft peculiarities.
My conveyance in this message is that I am going "backward" because of
this one aspect: nearly instantaneous edit-and-continue debugging.

I place a priority on above all other debugging aids (apart from the
obvious standard features, such as being able to inspect a variable,
examine memory, change something at debug-time, etc.).

Edit-and-continue is worth more to me than anything else as a tool, and
my desire to not move forward into the herding of people into track-and-
monitored versions is why I won't go with any Apple product, nor anything
Microsoft-related during their post-Windows-Azure announcement timeframe.

Microsoft changed at that point, and every product they've released since
that day has been one of a focused purpose toward online monitoring of
people's activity ... from Win8 through office products to their dev tools.

And as for Apple ... the bite out of the fruit ... no thank you.

Your mileage may vary.

[Mr Flibble]

I think you are in need of antipsychotic medication mate.

/Flibble

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Sat, 2014-09-13, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Saturday, September 13, 2014 1:13:34 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 13/09/2014 18:06, Bo Persson wrote:
>> > Seems like he is essentially using it as a C compiler, in which case it
>> > is a half decent C89 compiler.
>>
>> If he is using it as a C compiler why is he posting to C++ newsgroup?
>
>
> Because it is a C++ compiler even if it has some Microsoft peculiarities.
> My conveyance in this message is that I am going "backward" because of
> this one aspect: nearly instantaneous edit-and-continue debugging.

Fine, but please note that this pretty alienates you and
comp.lang.c++. We cannot help you, and you cannot help us.

> Your mileage may vary.

Indeed.

/Jorgen

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

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 1:52:45 PM UTC-4, Stefan Ram wrote:
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:
> >VC++ 6
>Please don't feed the TROLLs!

I am not a troll. I am honestly happy about this purchase and wanted
to share it with some developers to whom I have some connection in
this area of my life (c++ programmers). I have been wanting to get
this particular version of Visual Studio for some time. The copies
I've found have been several hundred dollars. I was happy to see the
$44 copy of Visual C++, which is all I would've really used anyway.

This is the Standard Edition, so it doesn't support optimization,
only raw un-optimized code (IIRC) ... but, that's also fine.

In any event... I'll stop posting now. I apologize for consuming so
much of your time with something that made me happy.

[Ian Collins]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Saturday, September 13, 2014 1:52:45 PM UTC-4, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> VC++ 6
>> Please don't feed the TROLLs!
>
> I am not a troll.

Waxing lyrical about a notoriously awful compiler on a forum frequented
by people such as me who had to suffer its awfulness tends to give the
opposite impression!

If I'd known there was someone willing to pay for a copy, mine wouldn't
have gone to landfill a decade ago...

--
Ian Collins

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 7:05:23 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 13, 2014 1:52:45 PM UTC-4, Stefan Ram wrote:
> >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> VC++ 6
> >> Please don't feed the TROLLs!
> > I am not a troll.
>
> Waxing lyrical about a notoriously awful compiler on a forum frequented
> by people such as me who had to suffer its awfulness tends to give the
> opposite impression!

What is it that makes it awful? I recognize it has limited C++ features,
and from a standards-looking point of view it is not up to snuff ... but
it does work, is very fast, and supports edit-and-continue in near
real-time.

If someone could explain to me how to make the more modern toolsets work
faster with edit-and-continue I would stick with the current tools. It
currently takes Visual Studio 2008 between 5 and 15 seconds to apply
code changes using Windows Server 2003 in a VM on Linux Mint 64-bit
machines with 4- or 6-cores with the guest given 2 GB of RAM. On my
native Win7 machine using the same VS2008 version, it takes between
3 and 8 seconds.

If I could get that down to 1 or 2 seconds I would continue using my
existing tools. But the slowdown is very counter-productive as it puts
pauses in my workflow, trains of thought. I wind up waiting for a tool
to complete its task, rather than me continuing on once I've completed
mine. This winds up being not only the slowest part of the equation
during those types of debugging changes, but one which decreases my own
performance as I get continually annoyed at the tool I'm needing to use.

> If I'd known there was someone willing to pay for a copy, mine wouldn't
> have gone to landfill a decade ago...

Mine either. :-) I had a copy at some point, and also got rid of it in
favor of newer tools. But over time I've seen the performance of the more
modern tools decrease even as our processor speeds, RAM and hard disk
speeds have increased. And whereas I enjoy working with more modern tools,
because significant speed has been lost in its edit-and-continue abilities,
there is a tradeoff I'm willing to endure to gain that speed back.

There are a couple things I've never understood in certain developers:
(1) That edit-and-continue is undesirable. It was the response I got when
back in 2010?? I posted about adding edit-and-continue to GCC. Someone
pointed out that Apple had added fix-and-continue to a version, but it
was not put back in the main line?? And I've seen on more modern GCC
roadmaps where it's been mentioned ... but I haven't seen it yet.

(2) That older tools are inherently less than newer ones. In my experience
this is often the case, but not always, and on some tools it's not even
close. The CodeView 3.x debugger I used to use allowed for two-monitor
debugging. It was amazingly fast. I miss that debugger, and actually
strove with my Debi Debugger to have some of its functionality and speed.
I actually wrote a text-based version of Debi at one point so I could
debug my 512 byte floppy bootup code in a real debugger. :-)

In my experience, there are certain tools that were just great. And
while there are many facets of newer things which are also great, they
don't negate, or aren't always sufficiently better than the old to justify
the switch (especially on software, which doesn't get old and wear down
as material things do).

I appreciate your response, Ian. I don't understand why people view some
things so harshly. If the type of programming I do, for example, is mostly
C, with only a very few C++ things thrown in, and I gain in debugging
speed the almost real-time application of code changes ... how is this
is any way a bad thing for me? And whereas it may not be something you
would like to use with the way you code, is your opinion of something
formed exclusively by your personal use of the product?

Or is there room for recognizing that other people may use tools in
different ways, and therefore see value in products that others don't,
and vice-versa?

[Ian Collins]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Saturday, September 13, 2014 7:05:23 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
>>
>> Waxing lyrical about a notoriously awful compiler on a forum frequented
>> by people such as me who had to suffer its awfulness tends to give the
>> opposite impression!
>
> What is it that makes it awful? I recognize it has limited C++ features,
> and from a standards-looking point of view it is not up to snuff ... but
> it does work, is very fast, and supports edit-and-continue in near
> real-time.

It was notoriously buggy, fixes didn't appear and it had limited support
for the C++98 standard.

> If someone could explain to me how to make the more modern toolsets work
> faster with edit-and-continue I would stick with the current tools. It
> currently takes Visual Studio 2008 between 5 and 15 seconds to apply
> code changes using Windows Server 2003 in a VM on Linux Mint 64-bit
> machines with 4- or 6-cores with the guest given 2 GB of RAM. On my
> native Win7 machine using the same VS2008 version, it takes between
> 3 and 8 seconds.
>
> If I could get that down to 1 or 2 seconds I would continue using my
> existing tools. But the slowdown is very counter-productive as it puts
> pauses in my workflow, trains of thought. I wind up waiting for a tool
> to complete its task, rather than me continuing on once I've completed
> mine. This winds up being not only the slowest part of the equation
> during those types of debugging changes, but one which decreases my own
> performance as I get continually annoyed at the tool I'm needing to use.

I guess if you are working with unoptimised C98 code, the smaller memory
footprint of an older tool would probably suit your needs. I remember
complaining vociferously but unsuccessfully to the developers of my
tools when they replaced the native GUI for a (spit) Java monstrosity
which used an order or magnitude more RAM.

>> If I'd known there was someone willing to pay for a copy, mine wouldn't
>> have gone to landfill a decade ago...
>

<snip>

> There are a couple things I've never understood in certain developers:
> (1) That edit-and-continue is undesirable. It was the response I got when
> back in 2010?? I posted about adding edit-and-continue to GCC. Someone
> pointed out that Apple had added fix-and-continue to a version, but it
> was not put back in the main line?? And I've seen on more modern GCC
> roadmaps where it's been mentioned ... but I haven't seen it yet.

Fix and continue has limited utility. It is only useful for unoptimised
C. As soon as there's hit of optimisation, especially inline code, or a
template it becomes very difficult to write and cumbersome to use.

> (2) That older tools are inherently less than newer ones. In my experience
> this is often the case, but not always, and on some tools it's not even
> close. The CodeView 3.x debugger I used to use allowed for two-monitor
> debugging. It was amazingly fast. I miss that debugger, and actually
> strove with my Debi Debugger to have some of its functionality and speed.
> I actually wrote a text-based version of Debi at one point so I could
> debug my 512 byte floppy bootup code in a real debugger. :-)

Older tools only support language standards current when they were
written. Even last year's version of the debugger I use (dbx) won't
support applications built for C++11 due to ABI incompatibilities.

> In my experience, there are certain tools that were just great. And
> while there are many facets of newer things which are also great, they
> don't negate, or aren't always sufficiently better than the old to justify
> the switch (especially on software, which doesn't get old and wear down
> as material things do).

There are, if you are willing to live within their constraints.

> I appreciate your response, Ian. I don't understand why people view some
> things so harshly. If the type of programming I do, for example, is mostly
> C, with only a very few C++ things thrown in, and I gain in debugging
> speed the almost real-time application of code changes ... how is this
> is any way a bad thing for me? And whereas it may not be something you
> would like to use with the way you code, is your opinion of something
> formed exclusively by your personal use of the product?

I guess you are happy to work with code that older tools can handle.
But have you ever asked yourself if your tools and way of working are
holding you back? I would hate to be stuck with C89 plus snippets of
C++, I much prefer to have the full language toolkit at my disposal. I
sometimes come across some of my old code from the 90s and think "now
that would have been so much easier with modern C++". I even find the
same with last year's pre-C++11 code!

--
Ian Collins

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 9:16:30 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
> I guess if you are working with unoptimised C98 code, the smaller memory
> footprint of an older tool would probably suit your needs. I remember
> complaining vociferously but unsuccessfully to the developers of my
> tools when they replaced the native GUI for a (spit) Java monstrosity
> which used an order or magnitude more RAM.

I wouldn't mind having even a console-based debugger, so long as it
was feature-rich and similar to a GUI (meaning you have defined
windows, drag-and-drop, could mouse over variables and have their
values shown, click on windows, edit code, etc.). I had originally
planned for my debugger for Visual FreePro to be text-based in a
GUI framework ... but have since moved it to use the underlying
Visual FoxPro-like forms and classes, so it can be maintained by
the community more easily.

> Fix and continue has limited utility. It is only useful for unoptimised
> C. As soon as there's hit of optimisation, especially inline code, or a
> template it becomes very difficult to write and cumbersome to use.

Agreed. But the purpose of edit-and-continue (or fix-and-continue) is
when you are writing new code, trying to get it to work. In fact, I've
been able to enter the debugger with an algorithm only defined, and
then code the entire body while debugging.

The lifecycle is edit-and-continue during development and initial
testing, then more traditional models once you reach initial maturity
on the algorithm's development and testing.

> I guess you are happy to work with code that older tools can handle.
> But have you ever asked yourself if your tools and way of working are
> holding you back? I would hate to be stuck with C89 plus snippets of
> C++, I much prefer to have the full language toolkit at my disposal.

I don't think I know enough of the newer C++ features to have any sort
of idea about what I might be missing out on. But in my experience
with C++ to date, I have not seen great advantage in those features I
have looked at. I have had to learn many new things to get what I've
viewed as only mild conveniences in syntax, yet use of such features
increases the knowledge requirements of developers who will come along
after and maintain the code.

My view may be atypical.

> I sometimes come across some of my old code from the 90s and think "now
> that would have been so much easier with modern C++". I even find the
> same with last year's pre-C++11 code!

There are some C++ features I intend to code into my RDC compiler,
but they are very few beyond the basic class and some helper
extensions through the use of casks.

Over the long term I've found that coding things more explicitly,
with simpler algorithms, proper comments, and other basic things,
it makes the maintenance an order of magnitude easier and faster
than code which requires a greater degree of knowledge and/or
expertise to wield.

[Ian Collins]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Saturday, September 13, 2014 9:16:30 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:

No I didn't, I wrote it on Sunday afternoon!

>> Fix and continue has limited utility. It is only useful for unoptimised
>> C. As soon as there's hit of optimisation, especially inline code, or a
>> template it becomes very difficult to write and cumbersome to use.
>
> Agreed. But the purpose of edit-and-continue (or fix-and-continue) is
> when you are writing new code, trying to get it to work. In fact, I've
> been able to enter the debugger with an algorithm only defined, and
> then code the entire body while debugging.
>
> The lifecycle is edit-and-continue during development and initial
> testing, then more traditional models once you reach initial maturity
> on the algorithm's development and testing.

I think I've suggested to you before that test driven development would
be a natural progression for you to try. I used to rely heavily on fix
and continue in dbx, but now I just use the debugger for production core
files or when I'm sufficiently intrigued as to why a test fails to debug
it rather than simply back out the change that broke it.

>> I guess you are happy to work with code that older tools can handle.
>> But have you ever asked yourself if your tools and way of working are
>> holding you back? I would hate to be stuck with C89 plus snippets of
>> C++, I much prefer to have the full language toolkit at my disposal.
>
> I don't think I know enough of the newer C++ features to have any sort
> of idea about what I might be missing out on. But in my experience
> with C++ to date, I have not seen great advantage in those features I
> have looked at. I have had to learn many new things to get what I've
> viewed as only mild conveniences in syntax, yet use of such features
> increases the knowledge requirements of developers who will come along
> after and maintain the code.

I've had a concentrated dose of C++11 in the past couple of months due
to beta testing a new compiler and working on a new project with like
minded colleagues. I can't see myself going back.

--
Ian Collins

[Christian Gollwitzer]

Am 13.09.14 19:20, schrieb Rick C. Hodgin:

> On Saturday, September 13, 2014 12:46:27 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:

> I have (generally speaking) only used MS's compilers since the late
> 80s as most all of my development has been in MS-DOS and Windows.

> [...]

> The old tools were freeer. I am choosing them for those reasons, even if
> they don't live up to modern standards in coding.

It would be interesting to see you argue with RMS

SCNR,

Christian

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Sat, 2014-09-13, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-09-13, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 13, 2014 1:13:34 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On 13/09/2014 18:06, Bo Persson wrote:
>>> > Seems like he is essentially using it as a C compiler, in which case it
>>> > is a half decent C89 compiler.
>>>
>>> If he is using it as a C compiler why is he posting to C++ newsgroup?
>>
>>
>> Because it is a C++ compiler even if it has some Microsoft peculiarities.
>> My conveyance in this message is that I am going "backward" because of
>> this one aspect: nearly instantaneous edit-and-continue debugging.
>
> Fine, but please note that this pretty alienates you and
> comp.lang.c++. We cannot help you, and you cannot help us.

To clarify that a bit: as I understand it, the language supported by
VS6 is sufficiently different from C++98 that most of us will have
forgotten how to use it -- or are trying to forget. Especially if it
didn't have the standard library containers -- all my code relies
heavily on those.

Then eventually I suppose it will also become harder to discuss C++98,
as more and more people here get used to C++11.

Never used VS6 myself, but I remember that gcc for C++ was in a bad
shape in the late 1990s. And I remember Windows users searching for
decent STL implmentations (STLPort?) well into the past decade.

[Mr Flibble]

On 14/09/2014 03:16, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> The lifecycle is edit-and-continue during development and initial
> testing, then more traditional models once you reach initial maturity
> on the algorithm's development and testing.

Bullshit mate; edit-and-continue should only be occassionally used
whilst debugging an issue not used all the time during the creation of
new code or refactoring old code. Personnally I have NEVER used
edit-and-continue and have had no problems and can develop new code
quickly. Basically YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG and YOUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
"LIFECYCLE" SUCKS.

/Flibble

[Paavo Helde]

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:de886793-385b-44b7...@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, September 13, 2014 7:05:23 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> > On Saturday, September 13, 2014 1:52:45 PM UTC-4, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>> VC++ 6
>> >> Please don't feed the TROLLs!
>> > I am not a troll.
>>
>> Waxing lyrical about a notoriously awful compiler on a forum
>> frequented by people such as me who had to suffer its awfulness tends
>> to give the opposite impression!
>
> What is it that makes it awful? I recognize it has limited C++
> features, and from a standards-looking point of view it is not up to
> snuff ... but it does work, is very fast, and supports
> edit-and-continue in near real-time.

I all depends on priorities. One of my first priorities is to write
portable code which can be compiled on different platforms. I guess there
is a subset of MSVC6 which is more or less portable, but this is too
limited for my taste (cannot use for loop scope variables, cannot access
std::map across DLL borders, etc, etc).

The edit-and-continue thing probably worked well enough only for pretty
C-style code. I recall vaguely that half of the time it did not work for
my C++ programs and I gave up on using it because I could never be sure
what code it actually produced.

In the current MSVC++ versions there are the "minimal recompile" and
"incremental linking" features which could be used for speeding up the
debugging process.

Cheers
Paavo

[Rick C. Hodgin]

RMS and I have had discussions over various things. He is the main
reason I founded the Liberty Software Foundation. I also desire to give
to the people "free software" (what I call "liberty software"), but
to do so upon a foundation built around the Lord Jesus Christ. I offer
up my skills, talents, abilities to Him, and unto men, and I do so
specifically by name because He is the true rock of our (believer's)
lives, the bedrock foundation of everything.

For example, I came very close in May/June/July 2012 to continuing
development on the HURD kernel. I discussed several aspects of this
with RMS, and he actually advised me not to put my efforts into
completing the kernel because they already had a kernel in Linux.
He advised me to work on a few GNU projects that he saw as fundamental
in moving forward, namely Gnash (GNU's Flash alternative).

Through those discussions I discovered some things about RMS and his
personal beliefs which made me take a completely different path with
my life, and to abandon any work I would've done on the HURD, for GNU,
or for the FSF. I've been working on Visual FreePro ever since.

In any event ... I continue to pray for Richard. I would like to
see him come to faith and believe so we could work together as
brothers. I have admired his skills and purpose. In the movie
Revolution OS you see a lot of his philosophy conveyed very
succinctly. It was that movie which first brought me understanding
of the differences between open source and copyleft protected free
software. But until his goals are founded upon serving the Lord,
and in that way serving other men, it is something I cannot be a
part of.

> SCNR,
> Christian

What does "SCNR" mean? My brain keeps interpreting it as "SCRN"
(short for SCREEN). :-)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, September 14, 2014 3:26:21 AM UTC-4, Jorgen Grahn wrote:

> On Sat, 2014-09-13, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> > Fine, but please note that this pretty alienates you and
> > comp.lang.c++. We cannot help you, and you cannot help us.
>
> To clarify that a bit: as I understand it, the language supported by
> VS6 is sufficiently different from C++98 that most of us will have
> forgotten how to use it -- or are trying to forget. Especially if it
> didn't have the standard library containers -- all my code relies
> heavily on those.
>
> Then eventually I suppose it will also become harder to discuss C++98,
> as more and more people here get used to C++11.
>
> Never used VS6 myself, but I remember that gcc for C++ was in a bad
> shape in the late 1990s. And I remember Windows users searching for
> decent STL implmentations (STLPort?) well into the past decade.

I understand. I haven't done much C++ programming. The bulk of the
programming I've done in C++ has used the class, and very little more
than that. And the class was only used for encapsulation and ease of
portability.

I have not seen advantages in C++ code which make it sufficiently
worthwhile to learn the extra bits required to use them, wield the
extra bits continuously for maintenance, and require the extra
complexity in the compilation tools to compile them. I find the
straight-forward conveyance of C to be more desirable, and especially
so once the baseline algorithms are created which handle the dozen
or so routine things required for iteration, navigation through data,
etc.

But, I recognize this is a C++ group so I will leave that discussion
there. :-)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, September 14, 2014 5:14:36 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 14/09/2014 03:16, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > The lifecycle is edit-and-continue during development and initial
> > testing, then more traditional models once you reach initial maturity
> > on the algorithm's development and testing.
>

> edit-and-continue should only be occassionally used
> whilst debugging an issue not used all the time during the creation of
> new code or refactoring old code. Personnally I have NEVER used
> edit-and-continue and have had no problems and can develop new code
> quickly. Basically YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG and YOUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
> "LIFECYCLE" SUCKS.
>
> /Flibble

(1) If you would like me to respond to you in the future, avoid using
profanity. Your choice.

(2) You are one of the most hostile people I've ever encountered on a
newsgroup. I feel sorry for you dwelling in all that hate and rage.

(3) If you'd like to be set free of that hate and rage, please contact
me and I will teach you about Someone who can fill you with love, joy,
peace, and hope. You'll be amazed at what you're missing. And what the
enemy is robbing you of in this life.

(4) I've used the software lifecycle I indicate successfully since the
late 1990s. Many developers see no value in edit-and-continue. I could
not live without it. I am using Microsoft-based tools today because of
it. I am building edit-and-continue into my own RDC tools. And once I
get them sufficiently developed, I will migrate everything away from
those tools to operate entirely in my own.

(5) If edit-and-continue doesn't work for you, you do not need to use
it. As I say, for my coding style, it is the single greatest asset I
possess. At least an order of magnitude beyond any other debugger feature.

[Mr Flibble]

So you are a troll then, a god bothering troll. Your god doesn't exist
mate: evolution is proof of this.

/Flibble

[Mr Flibble]

On 14/09/2014 13:59, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Sunday, September 14, 2014 5:14:36 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 14/09/2014 03:16, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> The lifecycle is edit-and-continue during development and initial
>>> testing, then more traditional models once you reach initial maturity
>>> on the algorithm's development and testing.
>>
>> edit-and-continue should only be occassionally used
>> whilst debugging an issue not used all the time during the creation of
>> new code or refactoring old code. Personnally I have NEVER used
>> edit-and-continue and have had no problems and can develop new code
>> quickly. Basically YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG and YOUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
>> "LIFECYCLE" SUCKS.
>>
>> /Flibble
>
> (1) If you would like me to respond to you in the future, avoid using
> profanity. Your choice.
>
> (2) You are one of the most hostile people I've ever encountered on a
> newsgroup. I feel sorry for you dwelling in all that hate and rage.

I am not angry mate and I only hate deliberate idiocy.

>
> (3) If you'd like to be set free of that hate and rage, please contact
> me and I will teach you about Someone who can fill you with love, joy,
> peace, and hope. You'll be amazed at what you're missing. And what the
> enemy is robbing you of in this life.

To repeat my reply else-thread: you are a god bothering troll mate and
evolution is proof that your god doesn't exist.

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, September 14, 2014 9:01:17 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> So you are a troll then, a god bothering troll. Your god doesn't exist
> mate: evolution is proof of this.

There is scientific proof which negates the existence of evolution.

Look into the complexity of DNA, the information contained within, the
variation of creation across the species, the diversity in application
of the available fundamental components, the underlying biochemical
hardware, the transport mechanisms, error correction, the various
operating systems, the software protocols in place, the interaction
between the disparate and specialized cells.

Evolution does not exist. Creation does.

Here's a movie which will help you understand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

I am not a troll. But rather I am a Christian. And as I go about my
life, I bring things back into their correctly centered, God-focused
nature. I found things upon the One who created all things.

[Mr Flibble]

On 14/09/2014 14:06, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Sunday, September 14, 2014 9:01:17 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> So you are a troll then, a god bothering troll. Your god doesn't exist
>> mate: evolution is proof of this.
>
> There is scientific proof which negates the existence of evolution.

What proof is that mate?

>
> Look into the complexity of DNA, the information contained within, the
> variation of creation across the species, the diversity in application
> of the available fundamental components, the underlying biochemical
> hardware, the transport mechanisms, error correction, the various

Non of which contradicts evolution mate.

> operating systems, the software protocols in place, the interaction
> between the disparate and specialized cells.

Gibberish mate.

>
> Evolution does not exist. Creation does.

The evidence for evolution is legion mate whilst the evidence for divine
creation is totally absent.

>
> Here's a movie which will help you understand:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

I don't watch god bothering videos mate; life is too short and there is
no afterlife.

>
> I am not a troll. But rather I am a Christian. And as I go about my
> life, I bring things back into their correctly centered, God-focused
> nature. I found things upon the One who created all things.

Sure you are a troll mate; one of the many trolls who are also Christian.

Your god is the god of Abraham mate and evolution is proof that that
particular god does not exist.

/Flibble

[Paavo Helde]

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:85dbc16f-cd76-4631...@googlegroups.com:

> Through those discussions I discovered some things about RMS and his
> personal beliefs which made me take a completely different path with
> my life, and to abandon any work I would've done on the HURD, for GNU,
> or for the FSF.

Seems like a good decision. We definitely do not need HURD kernel developed
with MSVC6 and in the edit-and-continue style programming.

Cheers
Paavo

[Christian Gollwitzer]

Am 14.09.14 16:24, schrieb Paavo Helde:

LOL. Maybe, this is what RMS *really* wanted to express: "oh please stay
away from my HURDy kernel! I'll propose some application level stuff to
him that will better fit his skills."

Christian

PS: To each one his own belief - but no need to indulge it onto others.
My name might be foolish;)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, September 14, 2014 10:10:23 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 14/09/2014 14:06, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > There is scientific proof which negates the existence of evolution.
> What proof is that mate?

A person must be willing to hear the truth ... to hear the truth.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, September 14, 2014 10:24:58 AM UTC-4, Paavo Helde wrote:
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote in

> > Through those discussions I discovered some things about RMS and his
> > personal beliefs which made me take a completely different path with
> > my life, and to abandon any work I would've done on the HURD, for GNU,
> > or for the FSF.
>
> Seems like a good decision. We definitely do not need HURD kernel developed
> with MSVC6 and in the edit-and-continue style programming.
>
> Cheers
> Paavo

LOL! Good one. :-) Very funny and clever. Of course, I would've used
"proper" tools for HURD development.

That period was an interesting period in my life. It has sent me on a
course which is different than anything I previously imagined. It is
also still unfolding.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, September 14, 2014 11:09:14 AM UTC-4, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> Am 14.09.14 16:24, schrieb Paavo Helde:

> > Seems like a good decision. We definitely do not need HURD kernel developed
> > with MSVC6 and in the edit-and-continue style programming.
>
> LOL. Maybe, this is what RMS *really* wanted to express: "oh please stay
> away from my HURDy kernel! I'll propose some application level stuff to
> him that will better fit his skills."

Possible. I never thought of that. However, it was his first response
when I contacted him about the possibility of picking up development on
the HURD kernel.

> Christian
> PS: To each one his own belief - but no need to indulge it onto others.
> My name might be foolish;)

The name itself isn't foolish, but only the application of the individual
(with regards to the thing).

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 11:25:32 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 13, 2014 9:16:30 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
> No I didn't, I wrote it on Sunday afternoon!

Ian, do you have any videos of presentations you've given? Or documents
outlining classes or sessions you've taught which are available to
the general public? And is your name pronounced eye or ee?

[Geoff]

Pot, Kettle, Black.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, September 14, 2014 11:58:38 AM UTC-4, Geoff wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 08:15:10 -0700 (PDT), "Rick C. Hodgin"

> >A person must be willing to hear the truth ... to hear the truth.
>
> Pot, Kettle, Black.

Truth speaks with one voice, and one voice only. It is why you must
be willing to hear the truth to hear the truth. It is easy to listen
to other voices because there are millions of them. But there is only
one voice which is Truth.

[Scot Dellinger]

Sounding echo inhere?

[Mr Flibble]

I thought you relied on faith? Faith is belief without evidence so how
can you know what you believe is true?

If your position is the truth then there must be mountains of evidence
backing it up mate. How about you give me just ONE piece of evidence
that shows that your god exists?

/Flibble

[Bo Persson]

Mr Flibble wrote 2014-09-14 16:10:
>
> Your god is the god of Abraham mate and evolution is proof that that
> particular god does not exist.
>

No, it doesn't prove anything. Evolution works just fine without the
presence of any deities, but they could very well exist anyway.


Bo Persson

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, September 14, 2014 12:30:15 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 14/09/2014 16:15, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 14, 2014 10:10:23 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> On 14/09/2014 14:06, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>> There is scientific proof which negates the existence of evolution.
> >> What proof is that mate?
> >
> > A person must be willing to hear the truth ... to hear the truth.
>
> I thought you relied on faith? Faith is belief without evidence so how
> can you know what you believe is true?

Faith is not belief without evidence. "Faith is the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

http://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm

Evidence comes through faith. It is the spiritual (invisible) part of
our existence which is manifested unto us through faith, that even
though we cannot see it with our eyes, through faith we know it is
there.

> If your position is the truth then there must be mountains of evidence
> backing it up mate. How about you give me just ONE piece of evidence
> that shows that your god exists?

I answer you in this: Give me just ONE piece of evidence that love exists.

[Mr Flibble]

On 14/09/2014 17:59, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Sunday, September 14, 2014 12:30:15 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 14/09/2014 16:15, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 14, 2014 10:10:23 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On 14/09/2014 14:06, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>>> There is scientific proof which negates the existence of evolution.
>>>> What proof is that mate?
>>>
>>> A person must be willing to hear the truth ... to hear the truth.
>>
>> I thought you relied on faith? Faith is belief without evidence so how
>> can you know what you believe is true?
>
> Faith is not belief without evidence. "Faith is the substance of things
> hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Yes faith is belief without evidence.

>
> http://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm
>
> Evidence comes through faith. It is the spiritual (invisible) part of
> our existence which is manifested unto us through faith, that even
> though we cannot see it with our eyes, through faith we know it is
> there.

Give me one piece of evidence showing that the "spiritual (invisible)
part of out existence" exists. How do you know it is there without
evidence?

>
>> If your position is the truth then there must be mountains of evidence
>> backing it up mate. How about you give me just ONE piece of evidence
>> that shows that your god exists?
>
> I answer you in this: Give me just ONE piece of evidence that love exists.

I asked first mate (ignoring your strawman); again give me ONE piece of
evidence showing that your god exists.

/Flibble

[Mr Flibble]

What? I never said evolution works just fine with the presence of
dieties. Get a clue mate.

Evolution is proof that there was no first human called Adam and
therefore everyone descended from Adam (as stated in the bible) cannot
have existed either which includes Abraham and Moses. No Abraham: no
Abrahamic god.

/Flibble

[David Brown]

If you wanted anyone to take you even slightly seriously, then you would
say "evolution is such a fantastic thing that I view evolution, together
with the biological basis on which it works, as an example of the power
of God and His creation".

Why some so-called "believers" have such little faith in their god, and
fight against some of the most amazing things found in the universe, is
beyond me. If I were "god", I would find it insulting the way you
deride one of the greatest marvels around.

I am a scientist - I understand that evolution is inevitable from
mathematical laws and a few basic premises (it is not dependent on
biology or bio-chemistry). But still I find it fascinating - and if
there were anything that were to make me think that there must be some
"intelligence" at hand in making the universe, then it would be evolution.

[David Brown]

Have you ever done something that is arguably stupid, or given up
something important to you, because of love? If so, then that is your
evidence that love exists - and if not, then you should start
concentrating on your relationships with your fellow humans rather than
your god.

[David Brown]

Few Christians actually take the beginning of Genesis literally - they
know it is just a fable to explain something the authors didn't
understand at the time, and to make it clear that God has cared about
them from the start. The idea of actually considering that the world
was made in 6 days, or that there was a first man called Adam, is a very
modern concept - it came around the time when science started explaining
the early world (with evolution, fossils, geology, etc.) and people
started thinking about pre-history. Scientists (most of them devote
Christians) gave scientific answers, and a few ignoramuses invented
Creationism as a sort of knee-jerk reaction.

Most Christians (and most believers in other religions, at least in
educated parts of the world) are happy to let science explain some
things in the world, and religion explain other things - with parts in
the middle that no one can explain. Unfortunately, there are some who
believe that their god gave them a brain as some sort of temptation, and
deny themselves the use of it.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, September 14, 2014 3:04:48 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> If your position is the truth then there must be mountains of evidence
> >> backing it up mate. How about you give me just ONE piece of evidence
> >> that shows that your god exists?
> > I answer you in this: Give me just ONE piece of evidence that love exists.
>
> I asked first mate (ignoring your strawman); again give me ONE piece of
> evidence showing that your god exists.

My response (asking you to prove that love exists) answers your question.

http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

You must be willing to hear the truth ... to hear the truth, Flibble. You
are unwilling to hear the truth, which is why it will always elude you.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, September 14, 2014 5:04:49 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> Few Christians actually take the beginning of Genesis literally

I do. And I testify unto you that God is alive, and His story of creation
is given to us for edification, for learning, that we may know our Creator.
I further testify that the reason you can't see this is because you are
unwilling in your inmost man to hear the truth. As such, you will never
come to understand until you humble yourself, and are willing to hear the
truth. On the day you do, that truth will make you free.

I love you, David. But God loves you more.

[Mr Flibble]

Mate, get a clue. Mate, fuck off.

/Flibble

[David Brown]

On 14/09/14 23:08, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Sunday, September 14, 2014 5:04:49 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>> Few Christians actually take the beginning of Genesis literally
>
> I do. And I testify unto you that God is alive, and His story of creation
> is given to us for edification, for learning, that we may know our Creator.

It's a /story/. If you believe the Bible to be written (and the books
selected) with divine inspiration, then it's fair enough that you
believe the stories in Genesis to be for education about god. That
doesn't mean it was ever meant to be taken literally.

Jesus told lots of stories to help people understand his message, and
the importance of love and mercy. They were /stories/ - parables - to
illustrate a point. No one thinks there really was a farmer who had ten
sheep and then lost one. Why do you think the parable of creation in
Genesis is any different?

> I further testify that the reason you can't see this is because you are
> unwilling in your inmost man to hear the truth. As such, you will never
> come to understand until you humble yourself, and are willing to hear the
> truth. On the day you do, that truth will make you free.
>

I am happy with truth, and with rational sense. But I am not happy with
nonsense.

The evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth, with the evolution of
species, is all around us. Either that is the facts of the world's
history, and god fits within that picture (setting things in motion,
guiding things along the way, etc.), or he has gone to incredible
lengths purely to fool people. To me, that sounds petty, jealous,
egotistic, and verging on evil - not the sort of god I'd be interested
in knowing.

(And don't ladle more of this "it's all Satan's fault" on us - if God is
in charge, then /he/ is responsible. The buck stops there.)

The alternative explanation, of course, is that there is no god.

[Mr Flibble]

On 14/09/2014 23:02, David Brown wrote:
> On 14/09/14 23:08, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 14, 2014 5:04:49 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>>> Few Christians actually take the beginning of Genesis literally
>>
>> I do. And I testify unto you that God is alive, and His story of creation
>> is given to us for edification, for learning, that we may know our
>> Creator.
>
> It's a /story/. If you believe the Bible to be written (and the books
> selected) with divine inspiration, then it's fair enough that you
> believe the stories in Genesis to be for education about god. That
> doesn't mean it was ever meant to be taken literally.
>
> Jesus told lots of stories to help people understand his message, and
> the importance of love and mercy. They were /stories/ - parables - to
> illustrate a point. No one thinks there really was a farmer who had ten
> sheep and then lost one. Why do you think the parable of creation in
> Genesis is any different?

According to Jesus the Old Testament is true. According to Jesus Adam
and Eve existed. Obviously Jesus never existed either (or if he did he
was only an ignorant human like Rick here).

/Flibble

[Melzzzzz]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 09:12:44 -0700 (PDT)

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is no Truth.

[J. Clarke]

In article <9YSdnfTzBKI5jIvJ...@giganews.com>,
flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk says...

>
> On 14/09/2014 23:02, David Brown wrote:
> > On 14/09/14 23:08, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >> On Sunday, September 14, 2014 5:04:49 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> >>> Few Christians actually take the beginning of Genesis literally
> >>
> >> I do. And I testify unto you that God is alive, and His story of creation
> >> is given to us for edification, for learning, that we may know our
> >> Creator.
> >
> > It's a /story/. If you believe the Bible to be written (and the books
> > selected) with divine inspiration, then it's fair enough that you
> > believe the stories in Genesis to be for education about god. That
> > doesn't mean it was ever meant to be taken literally.
> >
> > Jesus told lots of stories to help people understand his message, and
> > the importance of love and mercy. They were /stories/ - parables - to
> > illustrate a point. No one thinks there really was a farmer who had ten
> > sheep and then lost one. Why do you think the parable of creation in
> > Genesis is any different?
>
> According to Jesus the Old Testament is true.

Care to quote him on that?

> According to Jesus Adam and Eve existed.

Care to quote him on that?

> Obviously Jesus never existed either (or if he did he
> was only an ignorant human like Rick here).

Why is it "obvious" that Jesus never existed?

[David Brown]

On 15/09/14 02:06, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <9YSdnfTzBKI5jIvJ...@giganews.com>,
> flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk says...
>>
>> On 14/09/2014 23:02, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 14/09/14 23:08, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, September 14, 2014 5:04:49 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> Few Christians actually take the beginning of Genesis literally
>>>>
>>>> I do. And I testify unto you that God is alive, and His story of creation
>>>> is given to us for edification, for learning, that we may know our
>>>> Creator.
>>>
>>> It's a /story/. If you believe the Bible to be written (and the books
>>> selected) with divine inspiration, then it's fair enough that you
>>> believe the stories in Genesis to be for education about god. That
>>> doesn't mean it was ever meant to be taken literally.
>>>
>>> Jesus told lots of stories to help people understand his message, and
>>> the importance of love and mercy. They were /stories/ - parables - to
>>> illustrate a point. No one thinks there really was a farmer who had ten
>>> sheep and then lost one. Why do you think the parable of creation in
>>> Genesis is any different?
>>
>> According to Jesus the Old Testament is true.
>
> Care to quote him on that?

I'll leave the quotes up to someone who reads the Bible more regularly,
but I think he said something along the lines of "the old teachings are
true". Of course, the OT as we know it did not exist at the time - it
was created in the 4th century based on a selection of the Jewish holy
books.

At best, his comments on the OT were vague - and they were mostly to say
that the "new deal" with god superseded the old eye-for-an-eye rulebook.
But it is the only basis any Christians have for claiming that the OT
is at all relevant (other than for partially historical cultural interest).

>
>> According to Jesus Adam and Eve existed.
>
> Care to quote him on that?

I am pretty sure that they were not mentioned in the OT - but I am
guessing that Mr. Flibble means that if Jesus said that the OT was true,
that implies that /all/ of it is true.

>
>> Obviously Jesus never existed either (or if he did he
>> was only an ignorant human like Rick here).
>
> Why is it "obvious" that Jesus never existed?
>

I think that is just Mr. Flibble's slightly odd logic.

Of course, there is incredibly little historical evidence that he /did/
exist (the Bible does not count as historical evidence) - certainly we
would expect far more to have been written about him, given the amount
of political and religious disruption claimed. (Obviously there was
plenty of political and religious disruption caused later in his name,
and there is plenty of evidence for the early Christians. But the
historical picture is consistent with JC never having existed outside
the stories told by the early evangelists.)

[Ian Collins]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Saturday, September 13, 2014 11:25:32 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 13, 2014 9:16:30 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
>> No I didn't, I wrote it on Sunday afternoon!
>
> Ian, do you have any videos of presentations you've given? Or documents
> outlining classes or sessions you've taught which are available to
> the general public?

No, all done on site for clients.

And is your name pronounced eye or ee?

ee

--
Ian Collins

[Stuart]

On 09/13/14, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I found a copy on Amazon.com for $44. I went ahead
> and bought it. I did so because the edit-and-continue
> compiler in that version is nearly instantaneous. Such
> makes for very swift debugging. Code change, and press
> F10 to continue with scarcely a pause. Desirable.
>
> So I will use VS2008 for most development as it has
> better editing features.
>
> And MSDEV98 and VC++ 6 for debugging.
>
> Should be getting it next week.

+1.

I also found the VS2008 IDE very sluggish and missed the old VC 6.0 GUI
very much (especially the WndTabs plugin :-( ). When I switched to 2008
I was very suprised that all my templates (I used CRTP extensively)
continued to work without major problems, I just had to insert the
keyword "typename" here and there. One of the major drawbacks of VC 6.0
is that it does not support Remote Debugging.

I don't understand why you get so many angry responses in this thread.
You use an ancient compiler that does not conform to the latest C++
standard, and you cannot write platform independent code. So what? Those
people probably can't imagine that other programmers use C++ and still
support only a single platform.

Some of the anger probably stems from the fact that your post is only
about VC++ (and BTW contains no actual question), so some of the others
may not be able to make a useful contribution. Instead of telling you
that you are a little bit off-topic here, they chose to bash you. Don't
take it personally.

Regards,
Stuart

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, September 15, 2014 8:18:32 AM UTC-4, Stuart wrote:
> Instead of telling you that you are a little bit off-topic here,
> they chose to bash you. Don't take it personally.

Thank you, Stuart. I really appreciated your response.

[Christopher Pisz]

Wow. comp.lang.c++.theology
The scientific view takes just as much "faith" and has just as many
things that "cannot be proven."

If there was a big bang, and I am not arguing that there wasn't or was,
where did this super dense mass come from? What was the cause in the
scientific cause and effect? What came before that? Eventually you have
to just throw your hands up in the air and say "It just was." Why did
chaos become order, contrary to science's own law? How did single cell
organisms become multicell organisms? There is a gap there in every
biology book. I think science takes just as much 'faith', but for some
reason people don't have such a problem with "we'll just accept that the
magical super dense ball in the sky just was"

Also, I don't see how evolution 'proves' that God does not exist or that
Adam did not exist. I've never heard the latter argument before.

but meh.

[Mr Flibble]

On 15/09/2014 01:22, David Brown wrote:
> On 15/09/14 02:06, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <9YSdnfTzBKI5jIvJ...@giganews.com>,
>> flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk says...
>>>
>>> On 14/09/2014 23:02, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 14/09/14 23:08, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 14, 2014 5:04:49 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> Few Christians actually take the beginning of Genesis literally
>>>>>
>>>>> I do. And I testify unto you that God is alive, and His story of
>>>>> creation
>>>>> is given to us for edification, for learning, that we may know our
>>>>> Creator.
>>>>
>>>> It's a /story/. If you believe the Bible to be written (and the books
>>>> selected) with divine inspiration, then it's fair enough that you
>>>> believe the stories in Genesis to be for education about god. That
>>>> doesn't mean it was ever meant to be taken literally.
>>>>
>>>> Jesus told lots of stories to help people understand his message, and
>>>> the importance of love and mercy. They were /stories/ - parables - to
>>>> illustrate a point. No one thinks there really was a farmer who had
>>>> ten
>>>> sheep and then lost one. Why do you think the parable of creation in
>>>> Genesis is any different?
>>>
>>> According to Jesus the Old Testament is true.
>>
>> Care to quote him on that?

When confronted by Satan, Jesus appealed to the Old Testament as a
source of authority by stating, "It is written," (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

"Your word is truth," (NASB, Jn. 17:17).

>
> I'll leave the quotes up to someone who reads the Bible more regularly,
> but I think he said something along the lines of "the old teachings are
> true". Of course, the OT as we know it did not exist at the time - it
> was created in the 4th century based on a selection of the Jewish holy
> books.
>
> At best, his comments on the OT were vague - and they were mostly to say
> that the "new deal" with god superseded the old eye-for-an-eye rulebook.
> But it is the only basis any Christians have for claiming that the OT
> is at all relevant (other than for partially historical cultural interest).
>
>>
>>> According to Jesus Adam and Eve existed.
>>
>> Care to quote him on that?
>
> I am pretty sure that they were not mentioned in the OT - but I am
> guessing that Mr. Flibble means that if Jesus said that the OT was true,
> that implies that /all/ of it is true.

No.

Jesus affirmed the historical existence of Jonah (Matt. 12:40), Noah
(Matt. 24:37-38), and Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4-6).

>
>>
>>> Obviously Jesus never existed either (or if he did he
>>> was only an ignorant human like Rick here).
>>
>> Why is it "obvious" that Jesus never existed?
>>
>
> I think that is just Mr. Flibble's slightly odd logic.

Evolution proves the OT to be false; Jesus claimed it was true ergo
Jesus was not divine but simply an ignorant human (if he existed at all).

/Flibble

[Mr Flibble]

Reality MIGHT be a mathematical structure describing an infinite
multiverse of "simulated" universes (the Mathematical Universe
Hypothesis or MUH). If MUH is true then there need be no beginning (or
end) because, for example, mathematical axioms have always existed (1+1
has always been equal to 2 even before the Big Bang of our universe).

/Flibble

[Bo Persson]

Christopher Pisz wrote 2014-09-15 17:13:
>
> Wow. comp.lang.c++.theology

Ok, so lets try comp.lang.c++.physics

> The scientific view takes just as much "faith" and has just as many
> things that "cannot be proven."

But in science it is accepted that some things aren't proven (yet), abd
that a new theory can improve on the old one if it offers a better
explanation or better predicts the outcome experiments.

>
> If there was a big bang, and I am not arguing that there wasn't or was,
> where did this super dense mass come from? What was the cause in the
> scientific cause and effect?

We don't know exactly. The big bang theory is a but fuzzy about the
first 10^-44 seconds...

> What came before that?

Nothing. Not only did space blow up (=expand) in the big bang, so did
time. Asking what happened BEFORE time appeared isn't all that
meaningful, as things like "before" and "after" didn't yet exist.

How can we know what happened before the notion of "before" existed?

> Eventually you have
> to just throw your hands up in the air and say "It just was." Why did
> chaos become order, contrary to science's own law? How did single cell
> organisms become multicell organisms? There is a gap there in every
> biology book. I think science takes just as much 'faith', but for some
> reason people don't have such a problem with "we'll just accept that the
> magical super dense ball in the sky just was"

Science doesn't pretend to explain everything. Physics in particular
just offers cute formulas for predicting the outcome of some experiments.

If we can use that knowledge to build computers or send a man to the
moon, the formulas are considered pretty correct. Until someone
discovers a discrepancy and wins himself a Nobel prize.

And unlike religion, at that point we don't pull out our old books to
prove him wrong. We buy some new books instead.


Bo Persson

[Drew Lawson]

In article <651b019d-b547-46c4...@googlegroups.com>
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:

[re: Flibble]

>(2) You are one of the most hostile people I've ever encountered on a
>newsgroup.

Really? Either you just got your first account, or you've been
hanging out in alt.cuddle with an aggressive killfile. By standards
of Usenet hostility, Fibble is nearly a daycare worker.


--
Drew Lawson | What is an "Oprah"?
| -- Teal'c
|

[Drew Lawson]

In article <c7omp6...@mid.individual.net>

Bo Persson <b...@gmb.dk> writes:

>Science doesn't pretend to explain everything.

Unfortunately, many people who claim to speak for Science often
claim that it does. And that, IMO, leads to these tiresome
pseudo-debates.


--
Drew Lawson | We were taking a vote when
| the ground came up and hit us.
| -- Cylon warrior

[Christopher Pisz]

On 9/15/2014 12:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Evolution proves the OT to be false

I think your premise itself needs a few more premises in order to be a
conclusion. I for one have no idea how evolution proves the OT to be
false. Are you talking about the fictional kind of evolution that claims
we came from monkeys? Or the scientific kind?

[Mr Flibble]

If Adam never existed then the whole Old Testament falls down like a
house of cards. Evolution shows us that humans evolved: there was no
first human called "Adam".

/Flibble

[Christopher Pisz]

On 9/15/2014 12:43 PM, Bo Persson wrote:
> Nothing. Not only did space blow up (=expand) in the big bang, so did
> time. Asking what happened BEFORE time appeared isn't all that
> meaningful, as things like "before" and "after" didn't yet exist.
>
> How can we know what happened before the notion of "before" existed?

This is the bit that is just as hard to swallow for me as any religious
explanation. The concept of time not existing and suddenly existing for
no known reason is equivalent to a God that always existed in my mind. I
won't try to convince anyone of anything, but I will argue that the
scientific cannot be "proven" any more than the religious one can.

The multiverse explanation is even harder for me to buy. While, I won't
claim to be up to speed on physics. Didn't the measurement of the Higgs
somehow destroy the multiverse concept? That's what I saw on Discovery
Channel anyway...Discovery Channel isn't very good with their explanations.

[Christopher Pisz]

Humans evolving and evolving from another species are two entirely
different things. I don't believe the latter has been proven at all.
Many accept it to be true, because it is the only thing that would make
sense if you believe the rest of the biological theory, but claiming
that it has been proven is making a very large leap imo.

[Mr Flibble]

You don't seem to understand evolution then mate; evolution is two
things: FACT and THEORY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Also mate there is not one single proven scientific theory as scientific
theories cannot be proven, only disproven.

You should have paid more attention in school mate.

/Flibble

[Christopher Pisz]

and in addition, even if humans did evolve from an entirely different
species, I still don't see how that disproves the existence of the first
human. Perhaps it would make the concept of him being created in a
single day harder for one to swallow, but even then, you would be
looking at it at the point of view that doesn't want to believe in a
creator that formed the laws that people claim disprove his existence in
the first place. Perhaps the first human was created in a single day and
then evolution took place after being expelled from the garden of eden.
Who knows. either way, nothing is proven or disproven and by its nature
cannot be.

[Christopher Pisz]

Ok. I still have no idea how you are forming this philosophical
argument: Evolution is true, evolution disproves Adam, therefore the OT
is not true.

Neither premise has any explanation and themselves are not accepted to
be true. Evolution, in the flavor you are using it, is not proven to be
true, it has never been observed or recreated in an experiment, and
cannot be observed and recreated, that one species evolves from another.
They cannot even reproduce the phenomena of a multicelled organism
evolving from a single celled one, much less something as complex as a
human being. Furthermore, even if it was, you are still making a leap in
your second premise.

> You should have paid more attention in school mate.

I honestly had quite a bit more interest in computer science class than
any other science class, including biology. However, I do not see any
error here. I did pay attention in philosophy and logic.

[Mr Flibble]

Did you not read what I just wrote? Evolution is BOTH fact and theory;
the FACT that evolution happened FALSIFIES the creation of a first human
called Adam: there was no first human as humans evolved. Falsifiability
is the cornerstone of science.

> true, it has never been observed or recreated in an experiment, and
> cannot be observed and recreated, that one species evolves from another.
> They cannot even reproduce the phenomena of a multicelled organism
> evolving from a single celled one, much less something as complex as a
> human being. Furthermore, even if it was, you are still making a leap in
> your second premise.

You are the one making a leap. The evidence for evolution is legion.

>
>> You should have paid more attention in school mate.
>
> I honestly had quite a bit more interest in computer science class than
> any other science class, including biology. However, I do not see any
> error here. I did pay attention in philosophy and logic.

Your faith blinds you mate.

/Flibble

[Christopher Pisz]

On 9/15/2014 2:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 15/09/2014 20:34, Christopher Pisz wrote:
>> On 9/15/2014 2:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On 15/09/2014 20:15, Christopher Pisz wrote:
>>>> On 9/15/2014 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On 15/09/2014 20:07, Christopher Pisz wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/15/2014 12:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

> Did you not read what I just wrote? Evolution is BOTH fact and theory;
> the FACT that evolution happened FALSIFIES the creation of a first human
> called Adam: there was no first human as humans evolved. Falsifiability
> is the cornerstone of science.

I saw nothing in the Wikipedia article that proves evolution of humans
from another species to be fact. Only a few summarized views of a few
people in science.

I have never heard of any experiment that produced life.

I have never heard of any experiment that turned a single celled
organism into anything other than a single celled organism or something
that wasn't alive at all.

So, yes, I read what you said. You want us all to accept not only
evolution as fact, simply because someone else says it is fact, but that
it is our origin, and not only that but you want us to accept, evolution
that creates entirely different species although it has never been
observed and never will be, as fact. You also keep asserting that the
first human could not have been created because for some reason, that is
contrary to evolution, as fact, although I still do not see where the
two are in conflict.

If a car was used to be a pile of rocks, that was turned into refined
metals, that were put together, fastened, and adorned with fiberglass,
how is it that I did not build a car?

> You are the one making a leap. The evidence for evolution is legion.

Nothing else fitting into their theories of origin without a creator,
does not make for evidence.

> Your faith blinds you mate.

Who said I was a man of faith? ...oh wait, even if I was an atheist, I'd
still have to have faith, like I said before, you'll just have to accept
that time did not exist and the ball of magical dense mass just was. I
suppose even they are blinded by it.

[Mr Flibble]

On 15/09/2014 21:13, Christopher Pisz wrote:
> On 9/15/2014 2:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 15/09/2014 20:34, Christopher Pisz wrote:
>>> On 9/15/2014 2:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On 15/09/2014 20:15, Christopher Pisz wrote:
>>>>> On 9/15/2014 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/09/2014 20:07, Christopher Pisz wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/15/2014 12:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
>> Did you not read what I just wrote? Evolution is BOTH fact and theory;
>> the FACT that evolution happened FALSIFIES the creation of a first human
>> called Adam: there was no first human as humans evolved. Falsifiability
>> is the cornerstone of science.
>
> I saw nothing in the Wikipedia article that proves evolution of humans
> from another species to be fact. Only a few summarized views of a few
> people in science.

The EVIDENCE for evolution is the FACT of evolution. It happened (and is
still happening); deal with it.

>
> I have never heard of any experiment that produced life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter

/Flibble

[Dombo]

Op 15-Sep-14 21:15, Christopher Pisz schreef:

> On 9/15/2014 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 15/09/2014 20:07, Christopher Pisz wrote:
>>> On 9/15/2014 12:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> Evolution proves the OT to be false
>>>
>>> I think your premise itself needs a few more premises in order to be a
>>> conclusion. I for one have no idea how evolution proves the OT to be
>>> false. Are you talking about the fictional kind of evolution that claims
>>> we came from monkeys? Or the scientific kind?
>>
>> If Adam never existed then the whole Old Testament falls down like a
>> house of cards. Evolution shows us that humans evolved: there was no
>> first human called "Adam".
>>

> Humans evolving and evolving from another species are two entirely
> different things. I don't believe the latter has been proven at all.

Rather than just believing that something has not be proven you could
educate yourself about the reasons why the vast majority of biologists
believe that humans have evolved from other species. You might even be
able to disprove the evolution theory and win the Nobel prize!

> Many accept it to be true, because it is the only thing that would make
> sense if you believe the rest of the biological theory, but claiming
> that it has been proven is making a very large leap imo.

Many educated people accept it to be the most probable explanation
because of the vast amount of fossil records and DNA strongly and
consistently indicate that humans have evolved from other species and
there is of yet no evidence found to indicate the contrary. People who
reject evolution usually do so not because of scientific evidence (or
lack thereof), but because it contradicts their holy book and/or because
the idea that they have ancestors common with the apes is revolting to
them.

[Chris Vine]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:17:53 +0200
Stuart <DerT...@web.de> wrote:
> I don't understand why you get so many angry responses in this
> thread. You use an ancient compiler that does not conform to the
> latest C++ standard, and you cannot write platform independent code.
> So what? Those people probably can't imagine that other programmers
> use C++ and still support only a single platform.
>
> Some of the anger probably stems from the fact that your post is only
> about VC++ (and BTW contains no actual question), so some of the
> others may not be able to make a useful contribution. Instead of
> telling you that you are a little bit off-topic here, they chose to
> bash you. Don't take it personally.

No, I think it was rather because the original post was completely
pointless. So you buy a new compiler. Do your really need to post
about it to this newsgroup? No question was being asked, such as,
"would this be a good compiler to buy", which would be on topic. It was
just an outpouring of ego.

This made it look like a troll, although it probably wasn't intended as
such.

This was certainly compounded by the fact that the idea of writing code
with such a compiler in 2014 is bizarre. But I think it was the
pointlessness rather than the bizarreness which attracted the attention
(rightly in my view).

Chris

[Christopher Pisz]

On 9/15/2014 4:20 PM, Dombo wrote:
>
> Rather than just believing that something has not be proven you could
> educate yourself about the reasons why the vast majority of biologists
> believe that humans have evolved from other species. You might even be
> able to disprove the evolution theory and win the Nobel prize!

I've already stated the reasons why below. No Nobel prize needed.

>> Many accept it to be true, because it is the only thing that would make
>> sense if you believe the rest of the biological theory, but claiming
>> that it has been proven is making a very large leap imo.

> Many educated people accept it to be the most probable explanation
> because of the vast amount of fossil records and DNA strongly and
> consistently indicate that humans have evolved from other species and
> there is of yet no evidence found to indicate the contrary.

Fossils and DNA strongly indicate?
Really? How do they 'strongly' indicate?

Do we have a museum somewhere where I can go and look at the actual
fossils of some other species along the time line as it grew hands,
arms, feet, the human eye, and emotions? Or do we just have a story book
that claims that is what happened?

Or are we going to produce some fossil of an ape and leap from 'it has
two arms, two legs, and can think, therefore we came from apes', or 'it
has X number of common genomes, so therefore we were all apes', because
that, again, is quite the leap.

> People who reject evolution usually do so not because of scientific evidence (or
> lack thereof), but because it contradicts their holy book

Sounds very much like my stated reason for its acceptance...
Just like people deny it because it contradicts their beliefs, people
accept it because it fits best with theirs.

> and/or because the idea that they have ancestors common with the apes is revolting to
> them.

Darwin himself says that we did not evolve from apes...


Where are all these half human/half ape people anyway and why aren't
they at varying stages of their evolution? Did it happen over millions
of years and then suddenly the entire species synchronized its final
form all at once at the snap of evolution's magical fingers? Do we still
have an entire race of people running around with claws and tails?
Or are you going to be incredibly un-PC and tell me some race of people
on Earth is "still catching up?"

[Christopher Pisz]

On 9/15/2014 3:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

> The EVIDENCE for evolution is the FACT of evolution. It happened (and is
> still happening); deal with it.

Cool story bro.

>> I have never heard of any experiment that produced life.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter

Not life. Not even close.

[Melzzzzz]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:21:25 -0500
Christopher Pisz <nos...@notanaddress.com> wrote:
Perhaps the first human was created in
> a single day and then evolution took place after being expelled from
> the garden of eden. Who knows.

First human is impossibility... How first pair breaded
into many? Incest? Garden of eden? Please...

[Melzzzzz]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:13:32 -0500
Christopher Pisz <nos...@notanaddress.com> wrote:

> On 9/15/2014 2:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On 15/09/2014 20:34, Christopher Pisz wrote:
> >> On 9/15/2014 2:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On 15/09/2014 20:15, Christopher Pisz wrote:
> >>>> On 9/15/2014 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On 15/09/2014 20:07, Christopher Pisz wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/15/2014 12:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> > Did you not read what I just wrote? Evolution is BOTH fact and
> > theory; the FACT that evolution happened FALSIFIES the creation of
> > a first human called Adam: there was no first human as humans
> > evolved. Falsifiability is the cornerstone of science.
>
> I saw nothing in the Wikipedia article that proves evolution of
> humans from another species to be fact. Only a few summarized views
> of a few people in science.

Currently, evolution is only explanation for living species ...
Do you have another one?

[Christopher Pisz]

There are several hundred out there. Any of them are a matter of belief
and faith, including the 'scientific' ones. I am not arguing that it is
an explanation, I am arguing the premise and conclusion of Mr Fibble
Sausages that:

A) Evolution is fact && B) Evolution disproves the creation of the
first human being = C) The entire Old Testament is false.

It simply is not a philosophically sound argument. A is not proven true
and B is not proven true, and even if they were, they don't prove C.

Even just looking at A alone, when people say "Evolution" there are at
least a dozen different ideas that entails which scientists themselves
argue over, much less uneducated folks whom believe we come from
monkeys, which was another claim of Mr Fibble Sausages. Darwin himself
never claimed we came from monkeys.

[Christopher Pisz]

On 9/15/2014 10:36 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:

There are several hundred out there. Any of them are a matter of belief

and faith, including the 'scientific' ones. You cannot speak of origin
religiously or scientifically and not have to rely on belief and faith.
It is not a scientifically provable thing. If you believe in the tiny
dense magic ball of mass, you still must simply accept and have faith
that it existed without known cause, that there was no time before that,
and that for some unknown reason it exploded, and that order was made
from chaos, that through some unknown magical means single celled
organisms suddenly became multicelled, and that entirely different
species sprang up over the ages, and that all the laws of physics and
science just happened to work out perfectly. Well...close anyway, I do
have a bad back and knees.

What people call and tout as "science" is itself a religion and they are
just as fanatic and emotional over it as people are over any religion.

[Christopher Pisz]

On 9/15/2014 11:54 PM, Christopher Pisz wrote:
> On 9/15/2014 10:36 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:13:32 -0500
>> Christopher Pisz<nos...@notanaddress.com> wrote:

Ignore this thread, use the other. Double post. Thunderbird got angry
at this debate

[Melzzzzz]

Not true. Evolution that it happens is proven. Without that
we wouldn't speak about it. Do we?

If you
> believe in the tiny dense magic ball of mass, you still must simply
> accept and have faith that it existed without known cause, that there
> was no time before that, and that for some unknown reason it
> exploded, and that order was made from chaos, that through some
> unknown magical means single celled organisms suddenly became
> multicelled, and that entirely different species sprang up over the
> ages, and that all the laws of physics and science just happened to
> work out perfectly. Well...close anyway, I do have a bad back and
> knees.

You have to believe what you observe.

>
> What people call and tout as "science" is itself a religion and they
> are just as fanatic and emotional over it as people are over any
> religion.

Nope. Materialists are fanatical, but not all people that believes
in science are fanatical.

>
> I am not arguing that it is an explanation, I am arguing the premise
> and conclusion of Mr Fibble Sausages that:
>
> A) Evolution is fact && B) Evolution disproves the creation of the
> first human being = C) The entire Old Testament is false.
>
> It simply is not a philosophically sound argument. A is not proven
> true and B is not proven true, and even if they were, they don't
> prove C.

A) There are evidences for it
B) Logical nonsense
C) Bible is book of myths and logical fallacies with some truth in it

>
> Even just looking at A alone, when people say "Evolution" there are
> at least a dozen different ideas that entails which scientists
> themselves argue over, much less uneducated folks whom believe we
> come from monkeys, which was another claim of Mr Fibble Sausages.
> Darwin himself never claimed we came from monkeys.

Evolution says that we have common ancestor. What that can be
if not some early monkey?

[David Brown]

On 15/09/14 17:13, Christopher Pisz wrote:
>
> Wow. comp.lang.c++.theology

> The scientific view takes just as much "faith" and has just as many
> things that "cannot be proven."
>

No, there is no "faith" involved in science.

There is faith in scientists - we have to believe that "they" are doing
a good and honest job once the science gets beyond our own personal
knowledge and ability. This is why "scientific results" do not become
"scientific fact" until a long period of peer review and replication of
results by others.

In science, there are simply things that "we" don't yet know or
understand. There may well be things that we will never know or fully
understand. There are always more questions - and each good answers
leads to more questions. And the "holy grail" for any scientist is to
take a known, solid scientific theory, and break it - this is the
antithesis of "faith".

> If there was a big bang, and I am not arguing that there wasn't or was,
> where did this super dense mass come from? What was the cause in the

> scientific cause and effect? What came before that? Eventually you have

> to just throw your hands up in the air and say "It just was."

No, you say "I don't know". You then try to figure out if there is a
way for you to learn or find out what happened.

/I/ don't know what happened before the big bang - I don't even know if
the question makes sense. I know that scientists are working on the
problem, and there are a number of theories - but I can't say if any of
them will ever be validated.

But until then, you say "We don't know" - or "We don't know yet", if you
are feeling optimistic.

It is not "faith", because it is an open question waiting for an answer
- it is not a pseudo answer given in some text, for which it is
heretical to question.

> Why did
> chaos become order, contrary to science's own law?

Scientific laws do not contradict that one (don't worry, most people
find the laws of thermodynamics very difficult to comprehend).

> How did single cell
> organisms become multicell organisms?

A lot of progress has been made on that one recently - and single
cellular organisms have been turned into simple multi-cellular organisms
in the lab via "unnatural evolution" (i.e., evolution but where the
scientists decides who is "fittest" to survive to the next generation.
The principle is the same, it's just faster for the scientist). Of
course, that does not say how the step actually occurred in our past -
it merely shows a mechanism through which it /could/ have occurred.

> There is a gap there in every
> biology book. I think science takes just as much 'faith', but for some
> reason people don't have such a problem with "we'll just accept that the
> magical super dense ball in the sky just was"

There are certainly gaps in science. As Dara O'Briain says, /of course/
science doesn't have all the answers. Otherwise we'd stop doing it.

But it is not "faith".

>
> Also, I don't see how evolution 'proves' that God does not exist or that
> Adam did not exist. I've never heard the latter argument before.
>

You are correct that evolution does not prove the non-existence of a god
(or any other super-natural entities or effects). Such things cannot be
proven scientifically. All science can do is remove the necessity or
motivation for using divine explanations for the world around us.

Our ancestors looked up at a thunderstorm, and concluded that since they
had no natural explanation for lightning, it must be Thor doing battle
with giants. It was a great story, and explained many otherwise
inexplicable things. When we learned how lightning really works (there
are still several open scientific questions in that area too), we no
longer needed to appeal to Thor. Still it does not scientifically
disprove the existence of Thor - but you would not say that a lack of
believe in Thor requires "faith".

<http://www.last-thursday.org/>

[David Brown]

On 15/09/14 19:51, Drew Lawson wrote:
> In article <c7omp6...@mid.individual.net>
> Bo Persson <b...@gmb.dk> writes:
>
>> Science doesn't pretend to explain everything.
>
> Unfortunately, many people who claim to speak for Science often
> claim that it does. And that, IMO, leads to these tiresome
> pseudo-debates.
>

There are lots of people who claim to speak for others, but don't
understand the situation themselves. And usually it is these fools that
speak the loudest.

You are right that this leads to tiresome debates - but it can often
lead to far worse, especially when they claim to speak for a religion or
a nationality.

[David Brown]

Discovery Channel can be interesting and entertaining, but it is a poor
source of science.

The concept of multiple universes is very much an open question, with
many different ways in which they might exist. Measurements of the
Higg's Boson influenced some of those theories, and probably ruled out a
few possibilities.

And the idea of what happened "before" the big bang is also open. We do
not know the extent to which "time" started at the big bang, or if it
existed before in some way. (We /do/ know that time is not the simple
linear progression that we are familiar with in everyday life - so
intuition is a bad guide to the concept of "time" on these scales.) Bo
is wrong to be so categoric about it - at best, he can say that the
currently accepted theories say that time and space came into existence
during the big bang, though we don't know what happened in the first
10^-44 seconds or so.

[David Brown]

I suspect he meant the scientific kind that shows that humans and
monkeys share a common ancestor.

(The idea that humans are "descended from apes" or "from monkeys" is a
common misunderstanding. We /are/ a type of ape, and the modern apes
and monkeys share common ancestors - we did not descend from modern apes
or monkeys any more than you are a descendant of your siblings or cousins.)

[J. Clarke]

In article <ZaidnV8zmrB0pIrJ...@giganews.com>,
flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk says...

So you know the name of the first individual who was genetically human
and it was not "Adam"?

In any case, a friend of mine who has spent the last couple of decades
working on the use of words in the Bible tells me that an argument can
be made based on such word use that Adam was not the first human, he was
the first of some special kind of human, and that there were plenty of
other humans around. He won't speculate about what was special about
Adam--was he the first Semite? Was he the guy who invented farming?
Was he raised by space aliens? In any case proving that there was no
person named "Adam" from whom all humanity is descended does not
disprove Genesis, it merely disproves the fundamentalist Sunday-school
version of it.

[J. Clarke]

In article <lv7sl1$vc$2...@dont-email.me>, nos...@notanaddress.com says...

You are not understanding what you read, not even close.

We have designed a genetic sequence for a living organism from the
ground up, put that in a dead cell, and the cell has come to life and
behaved as the designers intended. Now we have the relatively easy task
of synthesizing the rest of the cell and once we have done that we will
be creating life from raw materials. But the hard part is done.

[J. Clarke]

In article <lv7sj8$vc$1...@dont-email.me>, nos...@notanaddress.com says...

>
> On 9/15/2014 4:20 PM, Dombo wrote:
> >
> > Rather than just believing that something has not be proven you could
> > educate yourself about the reasons why the vast majority of biologists
> > believe that humans have evolved from other species. You might even be
> > able to disprove the evolution theory and win the Nobel prize!
>
> I've already stated the reasons why below. No Nobel prize needed.
>
> >> Many accept it to be true, because it is the only thing that would make
> >> sense if you believe the rest of the biological theory, but claiming
> >> that it has been proven is making a very large leap imo.
>
> > Many educated people accept it to be the most probable explanation
> > because of the vast amount of fossil records and DNA strongly and
> > consistently indicate that humans have evolved from other species and
> > there is of yet no evidence found to indicate the contrary.
>
> Fossils and DNA strongly indicate?
> Really? How do they 'strongly' indicate?
>
> Do we have a museum somewhere where I can go and look at the actual
> fossils of some other species along the time line as it grew hands,
> arms, feet, the human eye, and emotions?

To see all the steps you would have to go to several museums, however
yes, there are such. Of course they are not going to let you actually
handle the fossils which are quite fragile unless you can show that you
have training or experience that indicates that you know how to handle
them without damaging them and have a good reason to be messing with
them.

> Or do we just have a story book
> that claims that is what happened?

See the previous paragraph.

> Or are we going to produce some fossil of an ape and leap from 'it has
> two arms, two legs, and can think, therefore we came from apes', or 'it
> has X number of common genomes, so therefore we were all apes', because
> that, again, is quite the leap.

If it an ape that has two arms, two legs, and can think, how is it
different from a human? By the standard of evidence that you seem to be
demanding you cannot prove that you are human. Can you name every
ancestor in the chain between you and Adam? If not then you can't prove
that you are descended from him. Get thee from me spawn of Satan.

> > People who reject evolution usually do so not because of scientific evidence (or
> > lack thereof), but because it contradicts their holy book
>
> Sounds very much like my stated reason for its acceptance...
> Just like people deny it because it contradicts their beliefs, people
> accept it because it fits best with theirs.

No, it fits best with the evidence.

> > and/or because the idea that they have ancestors common with the apes is revolting to
> > them.
>
> Darwin himself says that we did not evolve from apes...

So why do you think that apes are any kind of issue?

> Where are all these half human/half ape people anyway and why aren't
> they at varying stages of their evolution?

The same place all the half-human half "mighty man" people who live to
be a thousand are?

> Did it happen over millions
> of years and then suddenly the entire species synchronized its final
> form all at once at the snap of evolution's magical fingers? Do we still
> have an entire race of people running around with claws and tails?
> Or are you going to be incredibly un-PC and tell me some race of people
> on Earth is "still catching up?"

"Claws and tails"? You could at least learn the difference between an
ape and a monkey and something about simian anatomy before you spout off
with this nonsense. However there is this phenomenon called
"extinction" that you might have heard about.

[Mr Flibble]

On 16/09/2014 06:17, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 23:59:39 -0500
> Christopher Pisz <cp...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am not arguing that it is an explanation, I am arguing the premise
>> and conclusion of Mr Fibble Sausages that:
>>
>> A) Evolution is fact && B) Evolution disproves the creation of the
>> first human being = C) The entire Old Testament is false.
>>
>> It simply is not a philosophically sound argument. A is not proven
>> true and B is not proven true, and even if they were, they don't
>> prove C.
>
> A) There are evidences for it
> B) Logical nonsense

It isn't nonsense mate: humans evolved ergo there was no *first* human.

/Flibble

[Mr Flibble]

Not only was there no first human called "Adam" there was no first human
period: humans evolved.

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 7:25:48 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Should be getting it next week.


I's arrived! It's arrived! Woo hoo! Will be installing it tonight
(James 4:15 -- Lord willing).

1998 ... here I come! :-) :-) :-)

-----
If I'm able to do so, I'll post a brief video demonstrating the speed
differences between VS98, VS2003, and VS2008 on edit-and-continue.
You'll see why I did it, and the difference it makes in debugging
(that is, assuming I can even get my code base to compile (without
too much tweaking) on such antiquated technology :-)).

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:18:19 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> ...on edit-and-continue.
> You'll see why I did it, and the difference it makes in debugging...

Here's an interesting bit of trivia. I had upgrade to VS98 at work from
my previous DOS-only based toolset. I had typically only used QEdit and
TSE for editing, and then command line batch files for compilation. It
took me a while to get used to the VS98 IDE.

One day while stepping through code, I accidentally hit the keyboard.
When I did so it changed the contents. This was not possible with what
I had previously known, which was the CodeView Debugger, which would
allow you to navigate through the ode, but not alter it. The change
freaked me out and I thought ... "oh, how interesting, I can make code
changes while I'm debugging my code so that when I get done debugging
they will already be there and I can compile them immediately. That's
so nice. I hadn't noticed the "Apply Changes" button which became
highlighted. So ... for a couple weeks, I would make changes, stop
my debugging session, recompile, and restart my debugging session.
Then one day...

I noticed the button for "Apply Changes" show up when I had made some
changes. I thought, "Oh, how interesting. What is that?" And I hovered
over it and I saw the tooltip "Apply Changes" and I said out loud,
"What?!" And I clicked it ... and it applied changes ... and I was
able to continue working on my code from there...

I was forever converted.

This was circa 1999 I believe. Very interesting revelation. I still
have the laptop I discovered that feature on. An old IBM ThinkPad.
It doesn't work any more. It was damaged in a power surge at an
apartment I was living in circa 2001, but I honestly keep it around
because of that one connotation -- where I first learned of edit-and-
continue.

An insignificant thing to many, but my life was never the same thereafter.
My eyes had been opened and I saw ... possibilities.

[Stuart]

On 09/16/14, Chris Vine wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:17:53 +0200
> Stuart <DerT...@web.de> wrote:
>> I don't understand why you get so many angry responses in this
>> thread. You use an ancient compiler that does not conform to the
>> latest C++ standard, and you cannot write platform independent code.
>> So what? Those people probably can't imagine that other programmers
>> use C++ and still support only a single platform.
>>
>> Some of the anger probably stems from the fact that your post is only
>> about VC++ (and BTW contains no actual question), so some of the
>> others may not be able to make a useful contribution. Instead of
>> telling you that you are a little bit off-topic here, they chose to
>> bash you. Don't take it personally.

[snip]

> No question was being asked, such as,
> "would this be a good compiler to buy", which would be on topic.

[snip]

Just as I suspected.

[snip]

> This was certainly compounded by the fact that the idea of writing code
> with such a compiler in 2014 is bizarre. But I think it was the
> pointlessness rather than the bizarreness which attracted the attention
> (rightly in my view).

I wrote 150KLoc with VC6.0, and I only switched to VC2008 because of the
Remote Debugging feature. VC6.0 was perfectly fine for the subset of
features I was using. I daresay that VC6.0 would be fine for the
majority of C++ programmers as well.

There is probably only a thin elite that needs to stand C++ on its hind
legs. Naturally, this elite also provides most contributors in this
group (after all, if you are good at something, why shouldn't you share
your knowledge with other people). Sadly, the same elite seems to resent
the fact that some people don't share their enthusiasm about the latest
C++ features.

Still, I think that Rick made a very important point: If the C++ toolset
for your particular platform degrades in performance/usability, you will
cease using it, no matter how much the language has evolved (the Ada95
language may be way superior to C++, but it has only a small community
and few tools).

This leads to an interesting question: What would happen when the C++
standard committee approved of some super fancy feature that would make
the C++ compilation process so complicated that most compiler vendors
could only provide super slow compilation. That would effectively kill
C++, even though it is only a quality-of-implementation issue.

In the case of Visual Studio this is partially the case: Even though
much of the sluggishness of VC 2008 probably stems from the slowness of
the underlying DotNet technology, much of it can surely be attributed to
the stricter adherence to the C++ standard.

IMHO, the issue that has been raised by Rick should not be
underestimated. A lot of scripting languages thrive in the area of GUI
development, simply because of the mentioned edit-and-continue feature
(which is inherently easier to achive in simpler languages). This leads
to more and more people switching away from C++ if the project involves
GUI because the C++ tools are too cumbersome for GUI development. This
will lead to fewer and fewer people using C++ (or restrict the usage of
C++ to computationally expensive parts of the application). This could
be the beginning of the end of C++.

Regards,
Stuart

[Scott Lurndal]

Stuart <DerT...@web.de> writes:
>On 09/16/14, Chris Vine wrote:

>
>Still, I think that Rick made a very important point: If the C++ toolset
>for your particular platform degrades in performance/usability, you will
>cease using it, no matter how much the language has evolved (the Ada95
>language may be way superior to C++, but it has only a small community
>and few tools).

I think you underestimate the number of C++ programmers that don't
use fancy IDE's.

>
>This leads to an interesting question: What would happen when the C++
>standard committee approved of some super fancy feature that would make
>the C++ compilation process so complicated that most compiler vendors
>could only provide super slow compilation. That would effectively kill
>C++, even though it is only a quality-of-implementation issue.

Doubtful, very doubtful. Most programmers at CPOE don't bother
with IDE's and they're very productive. That applies to embedded
developers (a lot of C++ runs on embedded devices such as network
switches, core routers, etc). Most chip development uses C++
(along with system C) for simulation, tools et. alia. No IDE
necessary or useful (targetting non-windows environments).

[Melzzzzz]

I meant idea that there was first human is logical nonsense.

>
> /Flibble

[Mr Flibble]

I have never used "edit and continue" and probably never will: it just
doesn't seem that useful to me.

/Flibble