Am 14.12.2011, 03:02 Uhr, schrieb Jonathan M Davis :
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 01:57:47 Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:21:23 +0100, Bane wrote:
> Sorry, but it's true.
> Compared to C++, it has much friendlier syntax, important built in
types
> and all the goodies. And let
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:02:40 -0500, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Dang it. Now you're going to have me wracking my brain for hours trying
> to remember what movie I've seen that in. :)
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
I'm sure it is heavily influenced by something, might even be a Chuck
Norris joke. But I ca
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 01:57:47 Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:21:23 +0100, Bane wrote:
> > Sorry, but it's true.
> > Compared to C++, it has much friendlier syntax, important built in types
> > and all the goodies. And let us not forget - big standard library ready
> > to
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:21:23 +0100, Bane wrote:
> Sorry, but it's true.
> Compared to C++, it has much friendlier syntax, important built in types
> and all the goodies. And let us not forget - big standard library ready
> to go.
>
> But it is still rough on the edges, needs polishing and fixing
Le 12/12/2011 19:21, Bane a écrit :
> Sorry, but it's true.
> Compared to C++, it has much friendlier syntax, important built in types
> and all the goodies. And let us not forget - big standard library ready
> to go.
>
> But it is still rough on the edges, needs polishing and fixing little
> bugs
Trass3r Wrote:
> > Well, it is a nice to reinspect ones own decision after some time and
> > confirm it was and is totally correct.
>
> To do that just try going back to C++ ;)
Just did.
Things lacking:
- library
- easy to use maps and arrays
Things that should lack:
- bloody header files
Well, it is a nice to reinspect ones own decision after some time and
confirm it was and is totally correct.
To do that just try going back to C++ ;)
Trass3r Wrote:
> Am 12.12.2011, 19:21 Uhr, schrieb Bane :
>
> > Sorry, but it's true.
> > Compared to C++, it has much friendlier syntax, important built in types
> > and all the goodies. And let us not forget - big standard library ready
> > to go.
> >
> > But it is still rough on the edges,
On 12 December 2011 20:53, Robert Clipsham wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 20:08, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> Bigger == Better. :o)
>
>
> Biggest rock is best rock.
>
That's a whole lotta rox.
--
Iain Buclaw
*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Am 12.12.2011, 19:21 Uhr, schrieb Bane :
Sorry, but it's true.
Compared to C++, it has much friendlier syntax, important built in types
and all the goodies. And let us not forget - big standard library ready
to go.
But it is still rough on the edges, needs polishing and fixing little
bug
On 12/12/2011 20:08, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Bigger == Better. :o)
Biggest rock is best rock.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_APoSfCYwU
--
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/
On 12 December 2011 18:21, Bane wrote:
> Sorry, but it's true.
> Compared to C++, it has much friendlier syntax, important built in types and
> all the goodies. And let us not forget - big standard library ready to go.
>
> But it is still rough on the edges, needs polishing and fixing little bugs.
Sorry, but it's true.
Compared to C++, it has much friendlier syntax, important built in types
and all the goodies. And let us not forget - big standard library ready
to go.
But it is still rough on the edges, needs polishing and fixing little
bugs. Now it needs tender care to grow big (and l
13 matches
Mail list logo
