Linux-Advocacy Digest #281, Volume #30 Fri, 17 Nov 00 11:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Curtis)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Karri Kalpio)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Curtis)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Stephen Howe")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Illya Vaes)
Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity (mlw)
Re: Why Linux is great ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Chad Myers")
Re: a ms exodus thread ("MH")
Re: Need some advice on Linux ("MH")
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:10:51 -0500
Goldhammer wrote...
> > If I want a quick & dirty text editor, notepad is my choice.
>
>
> If I want a quick and dirty gui text editor under windows,
> I'll download a decent one.
>
> It's beyond my understanding how MS, a billion+ dollar
> company, can ship an OS with such a shit default text
> editor. With all their massive resources, they still
> haven't ever provided the user with basic text editor
> fuctionality.
Yeah. I have to agree with that. I had to buy my own decent text editor.
However, the other side of that coin is that many commercial developers
are complaining that Windows is stifling their viability by coming
prepackaged with the applications these commercial developers are trying
to sell. One way I've noted MS is dealing with this is to make each
bundled application basic. If you want something advanced then go buy it
or download a freeware solution.
Win2k's editor is notepad. It's disk defragger is very basic. It's faxing
system is very basic etc.
There's a rich market for Windows based text editors. The same goes for
Faxing software and defragging utilities etc.
Linux OTOH, is open source and comes packaged with a lot of supporting
open source software. The landscape is different.
--
___ACM________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: Karri Kalpio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: 17 Nov 2000 15:06:33 +0200
Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is interesting to read the results of a "whois starbucks.com"
> command. You Windoze users will have to figure out how to do a
> "whois" yourselves [and tell me, so I can do a whois from work <grin>].
>
> Network Solutions must not have a handle on spam.
Doing "whois starbucks.com" doesn't nowadays tell anything
interesting, try "whois [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
instead...
--karri
--
/"\ : Karri Kalpio
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X Against HTML Mail : [+358] (40) 5926895 (mobile)
/ \ : [+358] (9) 75111771 (work)
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:18:16 -0500
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote...
> > It's beyond my understanding how MS, a billion+ dollar
> > company, can ship an OS with such a shit default text
> > editor. With all their massive resources, they still
> > haven't ever provided the user with basic text editor
> > fuctionality.
>
>
> That's because Micro-sheep are too stupid to demand better.
Go here <http://winfiles.cnet.com/apps/nt/text-editors.html>, look around
and tell me if the demand isn't there.
www.textpad.com
www.winedt.com
www.ultraedit.com
www.notetab.com
are among my favourites.
Windows is a commercial OS. I don't really expect it to come packaged
with an advanced text editor.
--
___ACM________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: "Stephen Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:46:35 -0000
Reply-To: "Stephen Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0dMQ5.153$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sounds reasonable...
> But then why has everyone, Linux included, failed thus far with GUI's?
They haven't failed. It is more complex thing to get right. It does not mean
it is impossible. It will take time to iron out every bug.
Stephen Howe
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:50:27 +0100
Tom Wilson wrote:
>Stephen Howe:
>>Nonsense. There is no reason why having a GUI and reliability cannot both
>>be achieved.
>Sounds reasonable...
>But then why has everyone, Linux included, failed thus far with GUI's?
Monopoly.
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:55:22 -0500
JoeX1029 wrote:
> or how about: UNIX (PDP-8 ver.) UNIX System V, NeXTSTEP or the other systems
> that help set the foundation for most of todays useful systems?
I don't recall ever seeing a PDP-8 version of UNIX. AFAIK it was written
for a PDP-11. The PDP-8 was cool, 12 bits and all, but I don't think it
ever had a UNIX.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:12:18 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 12:56:25 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I have never seen a USB printer. FYI it works on my HP just fine.
>
> Lexmark z42 is an excellent USB printer that does 2400 dpi and works
> with PC as well as Mac. all for about $110.00.
> Editors choice in several magazines, and quite frankly one of the best
> printers I have ever seen for the money.
The best thing about Lexmark is they have developed a Linux
driver for their Z52 inkjet printer. It works brilliantly
under Linux. A nice GUI to set paper size, paper quality,
resolution, etc and it is also quite cheap. I can now get
colour print quality with Linux as good as I used to get
with Windows. Can HP, Epson, etc afford to ignore Linux
after this?
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:49:34 GMT
"Alan Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Alan Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There were two buffer overflow security bulletins in 2000 for all
products
> > > > in Windows.
> > >
> > > Try eleven, reported on SecurityFocus in 2000:
> > >
> > > Microsoft IIS 4.0 ISAPI Buffer Overflow Vulnerability
> >
> > This is IIS, an add-on service, not Windows. Are Apache exploits considered
> > Linux exploits? Sendmail? BIND?
>
> We may have to. Bruce keeps going on and on about all the buffer
> overflow vulnerabilities in Linux. But when I look on SecurityFocus I
> find, for 2000, a handfull at most and about 2 or 3 at best that could
> be considered Linux problems. So if Bruce gets to claim add-ons like
> Pine then Outlook/OE should be included. It gets hard to do, but we
> have to at least _try_ to compare like to like.
This is odd, because when you go to Red Hat's own security site for
various versions, you get different numbers (more).
When you go to Microsoft's security site, you find less than what
SF is saying.
Hmmm....
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a ms exodus thread
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:11:39 -0500
No, just that is what linux advocacy has become. If it has 'ms' in the
thread title it will tend to stretch to the moon.
"Thomas K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:kc2R5.3394$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Holy cow! I see 457 messages in that thread!
>
> u ppl are nuts! :-)
>
>
> thomas
>
>
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need some advice on Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:13:49 -0500
> I suggest 4GB for Windows and 22GB for GNU/Linux (one or two
> distributions) ... the other 4GB are ok for Solaris on Intel :)
What the hell are you going to do with 22GB's of disk space and a linux
workstation?
My god, you could just about install every application written for linux 4
times and still have more room than you'd ever need! Oh, porno & mp3. Sorry,
forgot.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:32:46 GMT
mlw wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > Russ Lyttle wrote:
> > > >
> > > > mlw wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Russ Lyttle wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mlw wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > > > Easy. It isn't an emotional dislike. C++ just isn't suitable for the
> > > > > > job. C++ is slower than C by an order of magnitude (almost as slow as
> > > > > > Java).
> > > > >
> > > > > This is completely false, and its inaccuracy can be proven by comparing
> > > > > the assembly language generated by both C and C++, you will see when
> > > > > similar constructs are used, similar assembly is emitted.
> > > > >
> > > > Absolutely correct. As long as similar constructs are used, C++ is
> > > > almost as fast as C. Just don't use any C++ specific constructs, such as
> > > > Classes.
> > >
> > In your example below, subclass a new class _class_c from _class_a and
> > then override the method. Make your new class inherit from both _class_a
> > and _class_b and add new methods. Create _class_c at run time not
> > static. See what I mean? In C this is difficult to do. It must be all
> > done by hand, but can be done with no indirection tables. C++ permits
> > you to code it easily with a runtime cost. And, although C++ compilers
> > have improved by 2 orders of magnitude, the runtime code size and speed
> > penalty are too high for OS development. I'm sure MS operating systems
> > are written in C also.
> >
> > I use C++ often. It has its place. Just not in anything that requires
> > real speed and deterministic time.
>
> I am not sure what you are taling about. Dynamic classes? There are a
> few papers about how to do this, but it is not part of the language. Are
> you simply talking about classes created with new? as in:
>
I was talking about Dynamic Classes. But I also drifted from my main
point. I'm don't want to get into an argument about the merits of C++.
Just why C++ isn't used in writing kernel code for Linux.
C is just a step above assembly code. This is both its strength and
weakness. C++ is several steps above that. When compared to C, C++ adds
a bit of code here and there. Those bits, even if only one extra
instruction or one extra indirection, add up. That extra work is not
acceptable at the kernel level. Add that to the existance of a large
library of stable proven comonents and the only solution for Linux (the
OS) is to use C. What is used to write applications is a different story
: choose whatever you find works best. I think that there you will find
we Linux nuts to be pretty pragmatic.
> A *a = new A();
>
> If so, this is just as efficient:
>
> class A
> {
> public:
> virtual void test(void);
> };
> class B : public A
> {
> public:
> virtual void test(void);
> };
>
>
> void funcT(void)
> {
> A *pa = new B();
> pa->test();
> }
>
> and the assembler looks like this:
>
> .globl funcT__Fv
> .type funcT__Fv,@function
> funcT__Fv:
> .LFB1:
> pushl %ebp
> .LCFI0:
> movl %esp, %ebp
> .LCFI1:
> subl $20, %esp
> .LCFI2:
> pushl $4
> .LCFI3:
> call __builtin_new
> movl $__vt_1B, (%eax)
> movl %eax, (%esp)
> movl __vt_1B+8, %eax
> call *%eax
> addl $16, %esp
> leave
> ret
> .LFE1:
> .Lfe1:
>
> Very efficient, very clean.
>
> >
>
> I get a kick out of this attitude.
> > Russ Lyttle, PE
> > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > Not Powered by ActiveX
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:51:33 GMT
mlw wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
> > For the first 3-4 years I used C++ as a "better C". I saw a study that
> > indicates that perhaps 75% of current users of C++ still do that.
>
> C++ is a toolbox. Just because you have a hundred screwdrivers. does not
> mean you have to use them. It is not a detriment to a tool that you do
> not use all of it.
>
Very true. I watched a person trying to change the battery in her car
the other day. She and her helpers ended up using about 6 different
screwdrivers, 5 different sockets, and 4 wrenches. When looked at from
the manufacturing standpoint, it was all perfectly logical. You could
see how it made original assembly easier and saved a few hundredths of a
cent here and there. But for maintainance it meant that you should take
the car back to the dealer to change the battery.
> I use C++ mostly as C with classes, I think templates should be used
> sparingly, and exceptions should be used to handle exceptional
> situations.
>
So do most people. Most projects are small enough to not need the more
advanced features of C++. But I think that may change. "Reusable
Components" is a current buzz phrase which is going to lead to some real
heavy-duty OOP.
Improper usage of exceptions is a plague on both C++ and Java. Thats not
a language problem. Its a human problem. Short of breaking fingers, I
don't know how to fix that.
I use templates a lot. I do think the components that make up the STL
were well choosen. I just don't think they are well implemented or
proven. Every STL I've used has had problems with implementation. Any
one got an open source STL they would like to share?
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: 17 Nov 2000 14:52:45 GMT
In article <3a11894b$0$3640$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hoot Owl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #2) Two words: Recycle Bin
Two words: GUI Gimmick.
Donal (who has one on his Solaris desktop and thinks its a waste of space...)
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:54:18 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Templates are great. I just wish they had done them like Ada generics. I
> > also wish they had been better implemented. If you can point to a good
> > proven correct fast STL I could really use one.
>
> Actually, the Dinkumware STL for Linux is the most compliant STL out there
> (I believe they claim it's 100%) and it's quite fast. It's equivelant to
> STLPort in most things. I think there might be a few areas where it still
> needs some optimization.
>
> > Ok, you try to maintain a 10000000+ C++ project with over 2000 classes
> > sometime!
>
> Certainly easier than maintaining the equivelant line C program, assuming
> similar levels of competancy of developer/designer in both.
Dinkumware is good and Plaugher has been honest about the problems it
has. But problems there are, however minor. My usage isn't typical, so
most likely we are giving those developers nightmares ;)
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:58:11 GMT
In article <8v2v1j$526$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8v13kn$ji9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you have a problem with the points I have been trying to make
let's
> > here them! My claim based on netcraft is Linux and Unix are more
> stable
> > than W2K.
>
> Subjective.
Wrong, quantifiable. Thus objective
>
> That a Linux box is not insecure JUST because it has been up
> > for a year (good security practices keep it secure).
>
> Which you can't prove.
Sure I can. And I have. So have a number of other people. The ONLY
patches that need a reboot to apply are kernel patches that are not
compiled as modules. Eric has tried to find a remote kernel exploit
against Redhat and the best he can find is ONE DOS attack that crashes
the computer. Frankly, If my systems are Under a DOS attack, the fact
that it crashes my system is a SECONDARY concern. If I can prevent the
attack at a firewall then the DOS attack can not crash my system.
Besides, the claim was that a Linux/Unix box was insecure Just because
it was running for over a year and despite MANY tries, NO ONE has been
able to prove that claim. It is, after all, up to the person who has
made the claim to prove the point.
>
> >That the poor
> > showing of W2K is not based on the instalation of SP1.
>
> Which you can't prove.
Shure I can. Look a the netcraft stats for barns an noble. The problems
they are having started BEFORE SP1, Thus the problems they are having
are NOT because of installing SP1. Also, Unless barns and noble have a
few hundred computers that have only reported once each, B&N would have
to be installing service pack one OVER AND OVER to explain it's stats.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=www.bn.com
Now, prove how the stats reported by Barns and Noble CAN be related to
installing SP1
>
> >That the poor
> > showing of W2K is not based on people testing the hardware every 3
> > months.
>
> Which you can't prove.
The claim was made that testing every 3 months was the reason for the
poor performance, thus it it up to the person to prove that point. The
person who has made the claim can not site one compay that takes it
hardware down, removes memory and drives then conects them to test
equipment to test. They have not shown that it would be cost affective,
while I have shown that it would not be. In short there is NO proof that
ANYONE does what Eric claimed, much less everyone that has been cited as
examples of W2K's poor performance. But hey, the one site they put up to
show that W2K can be stable, Starbucks, obviously does not do this! But
look at the stats, they are rebooting just about every day. Add to that,
the fact that Barns&Noble report stats that can only be explained by a 3
DAY testing cycle.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=www.bn.com
Now, prove how the poor stats reported by barns and noble are related to
3 month testing cycles.
>
> >That the poor showing of W2K is not based on clustering (Linux
> > and Unix cluster and are not so degrated).
>
> Which you can't prove.
???? the factors that have been sited to claim that clustering would
affect the uptime figures are the same for both! You need to prove a
cluster condition that WOULD affect the reporting of uptime that is
DIFFERENT between windows and Unix. Reread the discutions! Man, you are
sounding like a two year old "is not", "is not"!
>
> >If you care to disscuse these
> > points the fine. If you want to insult me because you do not like
> what I
> > say, please killfile me or do not read my posts.
>
> If you want to raise some actual valid points, then fine, we'll
discuss
> them. What you've raised is largely conjecture, based on figures
> collected by Netcraft.
>
Let's see, I have made claims based on actual numbers and all you have
said is the equivalint of "is not". In every case you have said that I
can not prove something, the original claim was made by a windows
supporter claiming "x" but NONE of them can prove "x". Infact, in many
cases they have been proven the be wrong. If you can not keep up with
the treads thats YOUR problem.
The fact that YOU say my points are not valid does NOT mean they are
NOT. Please prove my points are NOT vaild.
> The only person that has ever made it to my kill file is Aaron Kulkis,
> you're far less annoying than he is. Keep it though, you've still got
> a chance.
As you can see, I have basicly asked to be put in your kill file. Please
do. I do not like people who are so childish in their behavior as to say
little more that say the equivalant of "Is not" over an over. Please add
me to your kill file.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:20:28 GMT
mlw wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 02:05:28 GMT, Russ Lyttle wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, there you go mlw. This is type of luddite technophobe response shows
> > > that you were right !
> > >
> > > >mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > >Easy. It isn't an emotional dislike. C++ just isn't suitable for the
> > > >job.
> > >
> > > C++ is more suitable than C for any job that requires OO.
> > >
> > True. Writing kernel code for an OS just isn't one of those jobs.
>
> I wrote a class library for Windows NT kernel modules and DOS/Windows
> VxDs using C++. It rocked.
>
> >
> > > > C++ is slower than C by an order of magnitude
> > >
> > > Verifiably false. C code is not going to run slower just because you
> > > compile it with a C++ compiler. And replacing virtual function dispatch
> > > with switch statements isn't going to make them any faster.
> > >
> > Well, just a little faster. I can eliminate at least one look-up. That
> > can make a big difference in running time if that look-up is getting
>
> What lookup? You mean the one 'mov' instruction of the 'vtable' entry?
> Less than a .01% overhead in any profiler.
>
The point is that the 0.01% is not acceptable in the kernel. In the
kernel you will find yourself often trying to eliminate clock cycles!
Currently I'm working on a project that has a rule forbidding the use of
division because division takes too long in interrupt handlers! Likewise
we spend a lot of time working on stack handling to eliminate one or two
operations!
> > > > (almost as slow as >Java).
> > >
> > > Hahahahaa ... laughably false. I wonder how my C++ color selection
> > > widget would perform in java ...
> > >
> > > > It is difficult to manage any sizable project in C++. Multiple
> > >
> > > How so ?
> > >
> > > >inheritance and friend functions are just two reasons.
> > >
> > You tend to get spagetti inheritance. Someone changes one base class
> > just a little. The whole thing crashes. Big C++ projects tend to have
> > this brittleness. In an ideal world changing a private method shouldn't
> > affect anything else, but in the real world it does. C++ classes lock
> > things up pretty tight. Then along come Friends and violate that
> > protection. Change a class. Then have to revise all the friend classes.
> > Then all the classes that depend on the friends. Then all the classes
> > that depend on the classes that depend on the friends .....
>
> These are project management, design, and coding standard issues. It is
> quite simple to blow up any multiple developer project with sloppy
> people.
>
We both agree that process is important? The problem I described is more
likely to happen on an SEI level 1 project than level 4. On a project
like Linux it would be almost guaranteed to happen. Imagine trying to
enforce that kind of process dicipline on everyone who submits to the
project!
> >
> > > Not very good reasons. Friends are usually only used to deal with semantic
> > > problems with operator overloading. The C++ approach of allowing friends
> > > is certainly more robust than the C approach of exposing everything.
> > >
> > I wish. But operator overloading is another problem. When you wrote A*B
> > did you really mean to multiply a vector by a scalar or is this bug
> > caused because you should have been trying to multiply by another
> > matrix, or perhaps by a complex?
>
> Again, just because you can do something does not mean it is a good
> idea. The ability to do it, is a plus.
>
> >
> > > Inheritence (especially multiple inheritence) is certainly no easier to
> > > do in C than it is in C++.
> > >
> > True. Which is why we come up with solutions that don't require it.
>
> That is a design choice.
>
> >
> > > Sure, you can criticise polymorphism, but if your project doesn't
> > > need polymorphism, you don't need to do use it in C++ just like
> > > you don't need to do it in C.
> > >
> > Thats correct. And thats the point.
>
> But the benefits of tighter type checking is a plus.
Ah, type checking. C++ almost got it right. C does not do type checking
either at compile time or run time. I wish both had something like Ada
type checking where I could turn it on or off as required. Ada code with
type and bounds checking on runs slower than Ada code with them turned
off. I want that feature in both C and C++!
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
