1. You are right. C++ is beautiful language, and I like it.
2. I know C++ much better than most of my co-workers,
but still I am not C++ guru and I don't know C++ for 100%.
This IS real world.
3. Can you give me e-mail of one of the C++ guru,
that will answer questions I sometimes have, please.
4. We have projects with millions of lines.
We use xlC compiler from IBM. This compiler doesn't support
50% (or more) of C++ templates (and some other things).
This IS real world too.
We need UI and toolkits. What is your advise? How we can use
toolkit that make extensive use of templates and other C++
features?
5. Sometimes C++ hides important things and take code semantics
out of programmer's control. This is my opinion from my experience.
6. C++ is beautiful language, and I like it, and I do read
design patterns and other related materials. I know enough to
understand it's importance, but still I think, it will take
some more time to C++ to became more clear and everywhere useful.
===
Felix A. Shvaiger
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Ury Segal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 8:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Vadim Vygonets
Subject: Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")
> Quoth Ilya Khayutin on Fri, Jul 21, 2000:
> > >From this thread I got the impression that most people
> > here think that C++ is still that language which has
> > no standart, used by small groups of people and is
> > realy useless. Well guys... IT IS NOT THE 80s
> > ANYMORE!!!
>
> Pity.
>
> > It is year 2000 and C++ is a standartized
> > language
>
> Yeah right.
Yes. Do you know what is a standard ? Have you EVER been
involved in standatrizing effort ? Did you ever READ a standard?
>
> > which is used by a VERY large amount of
> > people.
>
> Same large amount of people who choose Windows and eat in
> McDonald's.
Oh - you see, those people makes the economy. People
like you lives on another, imagenary world.
>
> > The GNU compiler, g++, supports *_well_* 99.9%
> > of the standard C++
>
> Some C++ professional say otherwise, but I'm not one, so I won't
> comment on this.
Give me one FUCKING "expert" that said that.
>
> > Also, exprience has proven that using an OO design for
> > large software packages is MUCH more efficient than
> > plain function based design.
>
> C++ is an object-oriented programming language? Gimme a break.
>
YOU do not define what is an OO language. The world
aroud you, which you obviously Ignore, defined, long time
ago, that C++ is an OO language.
> > Someone said that because gtk+ uses its own
> > implementation of an OO architecture in plain C, there
> > is no reason to it to use C++. WHAT???
>
> Nothing. People wrote object oriented code in C long before C++
> was born.
On SUCH a small scale, that you cannot give me one
example of your enougmous exagragations.
> Object orientation is a function of design, not
> language. You can write object-oriented assembly, and you can
> write C++ with gotos.
So fucking what ?
>
> > There is a big diffrence between a C++
> > class and a C struct: PRIVELEGE CONTROL!!
>
> So? You can't _really_ hide what's inside. You always open your
> header files. Anyone can just insert "public:" into the header
> file and do whatever they bloody want.
Everybody can do whatever in whatsoever language. What
is your point, or are you wasting our time ?
>
> What about this: C is a small simple elegant language. It's
> relatively easy to learn. There are lots of people who actually
> know all of C by heart.
>
> C++ is a bloated pig which just grew into existance. It has
> helluva lot of features. There are very few people who actually
> know all of C++. Everybody knows some subset,
You are right on this, but -
>and the problem is
> that everybody knows a different subset of the language.
Tell me please, on what research, or ANYTHING, are you
basic this idiotic sentense ?
>
> The biggest mistake in design of C++ was to base it on C.
>
> > It makes the code MUCH less buggy.
>
> Yeah right. There was some programmer that reported that in his
> experience C++ programs were almost always bigger and almost
> always needed longer time to write than functionally equivalent C
> programs.
I wrote 100's of 1000's of lines in both C and C++, and
for big projects, C++ kicks C every time. Now THIS
programmer tell you that.
>
> Who told you all this stuff? Your programming language teacher?
>
Who told you THIS stuff?
Do you know C++ at all ?
> Vadik.
>
> --
> If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected
> abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor, and when
> was the last time you needed one?
> -- Tom Cargill, C++ Journal, Fall 1990.
>
> =================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
> echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
