Roger,
I haven't had a chance, but I wanted to thank you for your insights regarding
C++ last month. I've not used it as a main language in some time.
I was coding in C++ long before smart pointers were introduced. Old habits
die hard I suppose.
Your comments made me reconsider many
Le 25/07/2015 20:55, Hendrik Boom a écrit :
...
This really
violates the standing principle of paying for only what you use.
I encountered this principle long ago when I got involved in the
design and implementation of Algol 68 -- they deliberately violated it
with one feature -- they decided
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015, Didier Kryn wrote:
I encountered this principle long ago when I got involved in the
design and implementation of Algol 68 -- they deliberately violated it
with one feature -- they decided that everyone would pay the price of
a procedure calling mechanism that supported
Le 25/07/2015 09:18, Didier Kryn a écrit :
Le 25/07/2015 01:57, Roger Leigh a écrit :
This really only applies to the grandfathered-in C numeric types
subset of C++. As soon as you use or own types (or wrap the
primitives), you have control over the conversions and can define
your own
Le 25/07/2015 03:38, Joel Roth a écrit :
Constructors and destructors are a helpful convention to
ensure objects get initialized and cleaned up properly.
For me this is the major utility of objects.
Anyway encapsulation and generics do not belong to OOP. In the Ada
programs I have
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:23:49 +0200
Jaromil jaro...@dyne.org wrote:
personally a fan of FLTK which I really recommend, worthed mentioning
in this thread I guess.
Thank's for reminding me about FLTK. I learned about FLTK a year ago
from a Debian-User inhabitant who had used it to create an
On 7/25/2015 5:26 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
In C++ this simply doesn't happen; upcasting is completely
transparent, downcasting with dynamic_cast is completely safe. This
can lead to long standing latent bugs in the codebase that are well
hidden.
What you describe is the result of poor
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 12:36:47PM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote:
On 7/25/2015 5:26 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
...
...
This really
violates the standing principle of paying for only what you use.
I encountered this principle long ago when I got involved in the
design and implementation of Algol
Oh I agree Henrik, but like all things, there is a time and place for it.
It is a good principle to keep in mind even when you break it when
designing a language because it avoids feature creep which is something
that has become far too prevalent in software, especially today. I
consider OOP to
On 25/07/2015 10:23, Jaromil wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Roger Leigh wrote:
I imagine the reason why Glib was written in C is because binding to
other languages is easier with C than C++.
I expect so. C is fairly straightforward.
This was certainly the original intent. But having used the
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Roger Leigh wrote:
I imagine the reason why Glib was written in C is because binding to
other languages is easier with C than C++.
I expect so. C is fairly straightforward.
This was certainly the original intent. But having used the bindings,
my experience was that
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 06:58:04PM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote:
Yes, I figured it was something along those lines. As I mentioned
in a previous email, my experience with GTK has been mercifully
small. I can certainly understand why you would get annoyed. I'm
something of a C aficionado so
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:14:21AM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote:
On 7/23/2015 10:41 PM, Isaac Dunham wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with you on C++, but I'd like to refer you to Roger
Leigh's comments on the subject about seven and a half months ago;
I'm only appending the first couple
Le 24/07/2015 04:52, Jude Nelson a écrit :
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:30 PM, T.J. Duchene t.j.duch...@gmail.com
mailto:t.j.duch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 08:22:55 PM Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Teodoro Santoni wrote:
...
On 24/07/2015 05:14, T.J. Duchene wrote:
On 7/23/2015 10:41 PM, Isaac Dunham wrote:
Now then, as for Roger's comments, I find them confusing.
[snip]
The C API is overly complex and fragile. You don't want to base your
project on a sandcastle. And the expertise required to use it is
very
On 24/07/2015 06:37, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 24/07/2015 04:52, Jude Nelson a écrit :
I don't care for it myself - because it is C++.
Minor correction: GTK is written in C, and relies on GLib, which is
also written C. However, it's open to debate as to how
similar/different C-plus-GLib is
Le 24/07/2015 07:14, T.J. Duchene a écrit :
C and C++ are both strongly typed, so I am assuming that he must be
referring to GTK using a pointer in C presumably to dynamically handle
function names and data for polymorphism. He can't help it if GTK is
sloppy, but I can't make sense of his
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:03:08PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
Hey T.J., you seem to contradict yourself when saying C and C++
are strongly typed and Type checking is never C's job. :-)
Actually, yes, C and C++ are typed, but weakly. They silently do
type conversion in pretty much
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 09:30:04PM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 08:22:55 PM Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Teodoro Santoni wrote:
... but, yeah, it's outside the scope of Devuan. D-Bus just sucks and is
documented on a random basis,
On 7/24/2015 5:03 AM, Didier Kryn wrote:
Hey T.J., you seem to contradict yourself when saying C and C++
are strongly typed and Type checking is never C's job. :-)
Actually, yes, C and C++ are typed, but weakly. They silently do
type conversion in pretty much every instruction.
On 24/07/2015 23:24, T.J. Duchene wrote:
On 7/24/2015 5:03 AM, Didier Kryn wrote:
Hey T.J., you seem to contradict yourself when saying C and C++
are strongly typed and Type checking is never C's job. :-)
Actually, yes, C and C++ are typed, but weakly. They silently do
type
On 7/24/2015 3:57 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
First, thank you for the reply, Roger. I supremely appreciate it.
I'm referring to the *GTK* C API here. Not C in general. If I
create a GObject-based class, either as a subclass of a GTK class or
as an independent class subclassed from the root
T.J. Duchene wrote:
Didier Kryn wrote:
What are your preventions against OOP for graphics? Is it against OOP
in general?
Mostly against OOP in general. It wasn't a bad idea to start with, but OOP
started out with good intentions and blossomed more into a movement. The
question really
On 7/24/2015 8:38 PM, Joel Roth wrote:
Hi T.J. and others,
I've been following this thread with some interest.
T.J., it seems most of your objections to OOP are not
strictly against the principles and advantages of OOP in
abstract, but against the way OOP is implemented in C and
C++.
With
On 7/23/2015 10:41 PM, Isaac Dunham wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with you on C++, but I'd like to refer you to Roger
Leigh's comments on the subject about seven and a half months ago;
I'm only appending the first couple screenfuls (which is maybe a third
of the original) but you should be able
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:30 PM, T.J. Duchene t.j.duch...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 08:22:55 PM Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Teodoro Santoni wrote:
... but, yeah, it's outside the scope of Devuan. D-Bus just sucks and
is
documented on
On 7/23/2015 9:52 PM, Jude Nelson wrote:
I don't care for it myself - because it is C++.
Minor correction: GTK is written in C, and relies on GLib, which is
also written C. However, it's open to debate as to how
similar/different C-plus-GLib is to C++ in practice.
Apologies
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 08:22:55 PM Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Teodoro Santoni wrote:
... but, yeah, it's outside the scope of Devuan. D-Bus just sucks and is
documented on a random basis, when you compare it to the rest of
GNU/Fedora
it's... like
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 09:30:04PM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 08:22:55 PM Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Teodoro Santoni wrote:
... but, yeah, it's outside the scope of Devuan. D-Bus just sucks and is
documented on a random basis,
29 matches
Mail list logo
