On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 06:11:49 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 12:53:19 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
It seems to me that the C experts crowd is the most
conservative crowd you can find, and one that loves to impose
its own masochism to the rest of the world.
Good catch.
On Saturday, 9 February 2013 at 18:47:00 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 06:11:49 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 12:53:19 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
It seems to me that the C experts crowd is the most
conservative crowd you can find, and one that loves to
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.comwrote:
C++'s use of for template parameters is not forgivable because many
people correctly predicted its problems at the time.
Does that also apply to Java and C#? :)
On 2/7/2013 6:52 PM, Ziad Hatahet wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com
mailto:newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
C++'s use of for template parameters is not forgivable because many
people correctly predicted its problems at the time.
Does
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.comwrote:
I haven't paid attention to those usages, so I don't have anything
informed to say about it.
So what was it about C++ that made it a bad choice to use for template
parameters (honest question). Was it because
On 2/7/2013 8:48 PM, Ziad Hatahet wrote:
So what was it about C++ that made it a bad choice to use for template
parameters (honest question). Was it because it also overloads the and
operators?
Grammatical ambiguities which require semantic analysis to figure out, such as:
a b c 3
On 2/7/13 10:33 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/7/2013 6:52 PM, Ziad Hatahet wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com
mailto:newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
C++'s use of for template parameters is not forgivable because many
people correctly predicted
On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 07:50:41 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/3/2013 10:11 PM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
Old C programmers are experts in
some fields and do not follow cool and idiotic ideas in
programming languages.
C's design isn't free of mistakes, either.
That's for sure. And time
On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 23:41:56 UTC, Ziad Hatahet wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Paulo Pinto
pj...@progtools.org wrote:
One of the few things I like about Windows 8 is that if
Microsoft has its
way, C will eventually become a second class citizen at least
on one major
On 2/4/2013 12:10 AM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 07:50:41 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/3/2013 10:11 PM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
Old C programmers are experts in
some fields and do not follow cool and idiotic ideas in programming languages.
C's design isn't free of
On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 09:01:53 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 21:26:11 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 1/29/2013 1:15 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 19:21:34 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
One real issue is order of evaluation bugs, but I
On 2/3/2013 12:32 AM, SomeDude wrote:
My wishlist for a real revision of C would be [...] And nothing more.
I've been seeing those wish lists for 25 years now. The trouble is, everyone has
a very different list!
Am 03.02.2013 12:10, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 2/3/2013 12:32 AM, SomeDude wrote:
My wishlist for a real revision of C would be [...] And nothing more.
I've been seeing those wish lists for 25 years now. The trouble is,
everyone has a very different list!
Funny thing is that if we ignore
On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 11:11:15 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/3/2013 12:32 AM, SomeDude wrote:
My wishlist for a real revision of C would be [...] And
nothing more.
I've been seeing those wish lists for 25 years now. The trouble
is, everyone has a very different list!
And yet C is
Am 03.02.2013 13:53, schrieb SomeDude:
On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 11:11:15 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/3/2013 12:32 AM, SomeDude wrote:
[...]
It seems to me that the C experts crowd is the most conservative crowd
you can find, and one that loves to impose its own masochism to the rest
of
On 2/3/2013 4:53 AM, SomeDude wrote:
It seems to me that the C experts crowd is the most conservative crowd you can
find, and one that loves to impose its own masochism to the rest of the world.
I suspect that what happened is the C people who wanted more have long since
moved to other
Am 03.02.2013 20:42, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 2/3/2013 4:53 AM, SomeDude wrote:
It seems to me that the C experts crowd is the most conservative crowd
you can
find, and one that loves to impose its own masochism to the rest of
the world.
I suspect that what happened is the C people who
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Paulo Pinto pj...@progtools.org wrote:
One of the few things I like about Windows 8 is that if Microsoft has its
way, C will eventually become a second class citizen at least on one major
platform.
I presume you mean to C++? Since when was C a first class
On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 12:53:19 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
It seems to me that the C experts crowd is the most
conservative crowd you can find, and one that loves to impose
its own masochism to the rest of the world.
Good catch. But I see slightly different way. Old C programmers
are
On 2/3/2013 10:11 PM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
Old C programmers are experts in
some fields and do not follow cool and idiotic ideas in programming languages.
C's design isn't free of mistakes, either.
On 01/30/2013 07:48 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
If you're somewhat familiar with the details of the C standard, you'll
realize that a laughably large percentage of C code currently in use is
actually invalid C (either due to undefined behaviour, or incorrect
reliance on sizeof(char)==1, or a whole
On 01/29/2013 10:26 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
valgrind is immensely useful for C, but a lot less so for D as D guarantees
initialization and a GC takes care of much of the rest.
On the subject of valgrind and D's garbage collection -- when I've run any D
program through valgrind's memory
On 1/31/2013 7:27 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 01/29/2013 10:26 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
valgrind is immensely useful for C, but a lot less so for D as D guarantees
initialization and a GC takes care of much of the rest.
On the subject of valgrind and D's garbage collection -- when
On 01/31/2013 08:15 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
GC isn't designed to 100% deallocate all unused memory. But C programs typically
are.
As you can probably tell, I have absolutely no clue about the rationale behind
these differences or their consequences -- could you enlighten me?
On 1/31/2013 11:42 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 01/31/2013 08:15 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
GC isn't designed to 100% deallocate all unused memory. But C programs typically
are.
As you can probably tell, I have absolutely no clue about the rationale behind
these differences or their
On 01/31/2013 11:54 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
It's a large topic for a n.g. posting. May I recommend the classic book on the
subject, Garbage Collection by Richard Jones:
Looks very interesting, thank you.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471941484/classicempire
(yes, it's an
On 2013-01-31 23:54, Walter Bright wrote:
It's a large topic for a n.g. posting. May I recommend the classic book
on the subject, Garbage Collection by Richard Jones:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471941484/classicempire
This seems to be an update:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 21:26:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/29/2013 1:15 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 19:21:34 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
One real issue is order of evaluation bugs, but I didn't see
a note about that
in the Clang list.
Why would you
On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 09:01:53 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 21:26:11 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 1/29/2013 1:15 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 19:21:34 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
One real issue is order of evaluation bugs, but I
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 19:21:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Even worse is all the millions of man-hours wasted in (usually
incorrectly) trying to make C code portable to theoretical C
compilers that have ints larger than 32 bits, etc., trying to
ensure that modern C code will work on a
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:36:06AM +0100, Zach the Mystic wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 19:21:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Even worse is all the millions of man-hours wasted in (usually
incorrectly) trying to make C code portable to theoretical C
compilers that have ints larger than 32
On Thursday, 31 January 2013 at 00:50:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:36:06AM +0100, Zach the Mystic wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 19:21:34 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Even worse is all the millions of man-hours wasted in (usually
incorrectly) trying to make C code
The quality of a language also comes from its compiler. Clang 3.3
will have this inside:
http://embed.cs.utah.edu/ioc/
To use it you have to compile with -fsanitize=integer:
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#controlling-code-generation
It slows down the code, but it's optional,
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 12:26:10 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Is is possible to use ioc from LDC2? D language should enjoy
all the nice things they keep adding to LLVM, otherwise C++
risks becoming more modern than D.
Join LDC development and find it out. ;)
On a more serious note, the IOC
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 12:26:10 UTC, bearophile wrote:
The quality of a language also comes from its compiler. Clang
3.3 will have this inside:
http://embed.cs.utah.edu/ioc/
To use it you have to compile with -fsanitize=integer:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 12:26:10 UTC, bearophile wrote:
The quality of a language also comes from its compiler. Clang
3.3 will have this inside:
http://embed.cs.utah.edu/ioc/
To use it you have to compile with -fsanitize=integer:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 14:22:06 UTC, Don wrote:
The key phrase is *undefined behaviors*. Remember that C does
not require twos-complement arithmetic. D does, so it doesn't
have those problems in the first place.
It must have been a dozen times by now that you have posted the
same
On 1/29/13 11:05 AM, Thiez wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 14:22:06 UTC, Don wrote:
The key phrase is *undefined behaviors*. Remember that C does not
require twos-complement arithmetic. D does, so it doesn't have those
problems in the first place.
It must have been a dozen times by now
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 16:42:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 1/29/13 11:05 AM, Thiez wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 14:22:06 UTC, Don wrote:
The key phrase is *undefined behaviors*. Remember that C does
not
require twos-complement arithmetic. D does, so it doesn't
have
On 1/29/2013 8:48 AM, deadalnix wrote:
Is that a practical limitation ? All widespread arch I know assembly for are 2
complement, and it seems like something settled now in the field. Or am I
unaware of some important stuff ?
One's complement machines existed when I was a wee laddie, but I
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 19:21:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/29/2013 8:48 AM, deadalnix wrote:
Is that a practical limitation ? All widespread arch I know
assembly for are 2
complement, and it seems like something settled now in the
field. Or am I
unaware of some important stuff ?
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 19:21:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
One real issue is order of evaluation bugs, but I didn't see a
note about that in the Clang list.
Why would you need runtime checking for that?
Besides the AddressSanatizer and MemorySanatizer features which
are obviously
On 1/29/2013 1:15 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 19:21:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
One real issue is order of evaluation bugs, but I didn't see a note about that
in the Clang list.
Why would you need runtime checking for that?
I didn't say you did!
Besides the
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 21:26:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/29/2013 1:15 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 19:21:34 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
One real issue is order of evaluation bugs, but I didn't see
a note about that
in the Clang list.
Why would you
On 1/29/2013 2:04 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 21:26:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/29/2013 1:15 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 19:21:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
One real issue is order of evaluation bugs, but I didn't see a note
45 matches
Mail list logo
