At 1/23/2007 12:39 AM, you wrote:
>At 11:28 2007-01-22, Rick wrote:
> >At 1/22/2007 12:55 PM, you wrote:
> > >Rick wrote:
> > > > At 1/22/2007 01:34 AM, you wrote:
> > > >> At 20:40 2007-01-21, Rick wrote:
> > > >>> At 1/21/2007 05:19 PM, you wrote:
> > > >>>> At 12:27 2007-01-21, navid yaghoobi wrote:
> > > >>>>> Hi
> > > >>>>> if you want to work with linux its beter to work woth C
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> There is NO excuse for writing ANYTHING in C these days.......none!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I disagree. While it is good to form an opinion and have a favorite
> > > >>> language, that does not mean other languages are useless.
> > > >>
> > > >> C is, and has been useless ever since C++ became standardized. and
> > > >> I'll say it again, There is NO point in writing anything in C these
> > > >> days. C++ is simply a better language, period
> > > >>
> > > >>> C is, in fact, a very good language. It is often used for writing
> > > >>> device drivers, for example. Sure, one could also use C++, but C is a
> > > >>> perfectly acceptable choice.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Victor. Have you opinion but don't degrade the choices of others. It
> > > >>> isn't necessary.
> > > >>
> > > >> I wasn't degrading anyone, and it's NOT an opinion, it's fact
> > > >
> > > > No, Victor, your statement is NOT fact. Saying "There is NO excuse for
> > > > writing ANYTHING in C these days.......none!" is simply not true. Sure,
> > > > C++ may be a superior language to C but, if one does not know how to
> > > > program C++ yet they do know how to write code in C, then C is a
> > > > perfectly acceptable choice.
> > > > This forum is supposed to help those of us who do not
> currently know C++
> > > > and would like to learn. Statements/attitudes like yours make that
> > > > process more difficult.
> > > >
> > > >>> ~Rick
> > >
> > >Rick, ignore Victor's rants. But did you know you can use C++ as a
> > >better C? (Nitpickers: I know it is a terrible association as they are
> > >two distinct languages.) For instance, in C, you can't do:
> > >
> > >int MyFunction(char SomeValue)
> > >{
> > >}
> > >
> > >int MyFunction(char *SomeValue)
> > >{
> > >}
> > >
> > >Because both functions have the same name. That's called function
> > >overloading and it is allowed by a C++ compiler. You don't have to use
> > >classes/templates to use C++. Little things like that make C++ a better
> > >language.
> > >
> > >Also, I am of the strong _personal opinion_ that the STL components of
> > >the C++ Standard are wrong (not everyone holds my view). The Standard
> > >should simply define how code is compiled and leave predefined
> > >functions, classes, and templates such as the STL out of it. And guess
> > >what? You don't have to use STL to use C++ either. If STL is confusing
> > >for you, then don't use it. You can always roll your own, although you
> > >might be ridiculed by your peers for doing so (reinventing the wheel has
> > >that tendency).
> > >
> > >However, before rolling your own string class, I recommend looking at
> > >BString:
> > >
> > >http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/c-prog/files/Books/
> > >(Safe C++ Design Principles)
> > >
> > >Rick, you seem to have similar feelings about STL as I do (general
> > >confusion being one of those many feelings). BString and kin and other
> > >ideas may be exactly what you are looking for. I should have done this
> > >a LONG time ago and made the book available to c-prog members, but
> > >hopefully this "change of heart" repairs some of the past damage.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Thomas Hruska
> > >CubicleSoft President
> > >Ph: 517-803-4197
> >
> >Thomas,
> >
> >Thank you for this reply. It show me this list *can* be productive.
> >And your offer to supply the book is extremely generous.
> >
> >Victor has a lot of knowledge to share. I'm sure of that. But his
> >frustration with those with less knowledge often shows as being
> >sarcastic and demeaning. It is counter-productive here.
>
>show me where I was sarcastic to you? I may have been VERY short,
>but until you held yourself out (briefly) as an "expert" on C++ I
>didn't comment.
Perhaps I should have said "sarcastic OR demeaning". Would that have
been better? Still, there's no reason to be rude OR to bash people
who don't know as much as you. Many of us are here to learn from
those, like you, who DO know the language. Why not just be helpful
and skip the harsh criticism?
I've NEVER said I was an expert in C++. I'm not. I barely know the
language. I'm not even an "expert" in C, either, although I'm fairly competent.
> >I know there are a lot of posters looking for handouts here. I see it
> >all the time and it frustrates me immensely. But I simply choose to
> >ignore the posts and don't reply. Well, mostly. I think I've replied
> >to a few out of frustration, myself.
> >
> >I want to learn from here. That is why I read the posts.
> >Unfortunately, I can't help much as I'm learning C++ myself although
> >it's my nature to help where I can.
> >
> >I'll read the book.
> >
> >Thank you.
> >
> >~Rick
> >
> > >*NEW* VerifyMyPC 2.0
> > >Change tracking and management tool.
> > >Reduce tech. support times from 2 hours to 5 minutes.
> > >
> > >Free for personal use, $10 otherwise.
> > >http://www.CubicleSoft.com/VerifyMyPC/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >To unsubscribe, send a blank message to
> > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe, send a blank message to
> ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
>The five most dangerous words in the English language:
> "There oughta be a law"
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a blank message to
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
