On Jul 17, 7:05 am, rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does Linus Torvalds not like C++?
He does not think that it is suitable for kernel programming. He's right.
Real *men* don't eat quiche. Real *programmers* write in assembler -- one
machine
mike3 writes:
Nh... a REAL programmer writes in MACHINE CODE... one *bit* at a time
and has only 2 keys on the keyboard: 1 and 0... :)
Never wrote in binary, but the first program I ever got paid to write was
written in hex using a dumb terminal and a computer with only a hex
monitor.
On Jul 22, 7:21 pm, Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
C doesn't have any support for decimal arithmetic, nor any means
of adding it comfortably.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/open/n4060.pdf
Yes, I'd heard about this. But I wasn't too sure of its
On 2008-07-23 03:42:29 -0400, James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Jul 22, 7:21 pm, Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
C doesn't have any support for decimal arithmetic, nor any means
of adding it comfortably.
On Jul 21, 9:02 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Willem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words: There cannot be any commercial applicaiton
written in C, because in your view it is not well suited to
one or two application types you can think of.
I don't think that's what James meant. I
James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
C doesn't have any support for decimal arithmetic, nor any means
of adding it comfortably.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/open/n4060.pdf
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
C doesn't have any support for decimal arithmetic, nor any means
of adding it comfortably.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/open/n4060.pdf
And in case you don't feel like waiting,
Wolfgang Draxinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sherman Pendley wrote:
Lorenzo Villari [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm maybe wrong, but I was under the impression that for
Firefox they use gtk+, which is written in C...
Gtk+ is indeed written in C, but it's object-oriented
And?!
Coding
Willem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words: There cannot be any commercial applicaiton written in C,
because in your view it is not well suited to one or two application
types you can think of.
I don't think that's what James meant. I think when he said commercial
application, he really
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
) I don't think that's what James meant. I think when he said commercial
) application, he really meant business data processing application. C
) really *isn't* well suited to most BDP applications, so his statement is
) much more reasonable when interpreted that way.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Willem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words: There cannot be any commercial applicaiton written in C,
because in your view it is not well suited to one or two application
types you can think of.
I don't think that's what James meant. I think when he said
David Kastrup wrote:
Well, message passing, the fundamental defining characteristic
of OOP (I mean, this is what made Smalltalk revolutionary with
regard to programming techniques and gave it its name) requires
you to switch sustained execution contexts, basically switching
to a different
On Jul 19, 11:25 am, terminator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 18, 11:24 pm, Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Wolfgang Draxinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I know only the comments Linus Torvalds made about the
implications of using C++ to
* James Kanze:
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
I'm not sure that statement is valid.
It would be very surprising, to say the least, if no or just a very few
commercial applications were written in
* Alf P. Steinbach:
* James Kanze:
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
I'm not sure that statement is valid.
It would be very surprising, to say the least, if no or just a very few
commercial
James Kanze wrote, On 20/07/08 09:23:
On Jul 19, 11:25 am, terminator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
In short words today`s C++ cannot be considered as general
purpose as C used to be in good old days.
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable)
James Kanze said:
snip
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
So MS Windows is not commercial software? Interesting.
(Early versions of MS Windows were written almost entirely in C.)
--
Richard
On 20 Jul., 10:23, James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:25 am, terminator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
This is not correct. My guess would be that there is
[followups set to clc]
peter koch said:
snip
My guess would be that there is loads of C-based
software around. Speaking for myself, I have been developing
commercial software in C from the days before C++ became popular. The
software was a financial package which is still today very
Richard Heathfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
James Kanze said:
snip
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
So MS Windows is not commercial software? Interesting.
Last time I looked, UNIX was not
Alf P. Steinbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be very surprising, to say the least, if no or just a very few
commercial applications were written in C.
All of my company's major commercial applications are written
predominantly in C, including one that's completely object oriented
but
James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Funny, I use it for that, with no problem. (Well, I'm not sure
what you consider web programming, but Firefox is written mainly
in C++. But maybe you don't consider that web programming.)
I'm maybe wrong, but I
On Jul 20, 10:50 am, Alf P. Steinbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* James Kanze:
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
I'm not sure that statement is valid.
It would be very surprising, to say the
On Jul 20, 1:51 pm, Richard Heathfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Kanze said:
snip
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
So MS Windows is not commercial software? Interesting.
Yes. Commercial
On 20 Jul., 21:59, James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:50 am, Alf P. Steinbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* James Kanze:
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
I'm not sure that
[followups set to clc]
James Kanze said:
snip
You can't really do accounting in C, for example,
Really? How strange. I've done loads of accounting in C. (But then I've
always been good at doing the impossible.)
because it has neither a
built in decimal type (like Cobol), nor operator
Lorenzo Villari [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm maybe wrong, but I was under the impression that for Firefox they use
gtk+, which is written in C...
Gtk+ is indeed written in C, but it's object-oriented and has bindings
for a number of languages, including C++.
sherm--
--
My blog:
Sherman Pendley wrote:
Lorenzo Villari [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm maybe wrong, but I was under the impression that for
Firefox they use gtk+, which is written in C...
Gtk+ is indeed written in C, but it's object-oriented
And?!
Coding something in C doesn't mean you must abandon using
James Kanze wrote:
) Yes. Commercial can be used in several senses (and I'm not sure
) of the usual English usage here). There's a lot of software
) written in C that is commercial in the sense that it is sold
) (i.e. commercial as opposed to free software). What I was
) talking about, however,
On Jul 18, 11:24 pm, Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Wolfgang Draxinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I know only the comments Linus Torvalds made about the
implications of using C++ to develop a kernel. And I totally
agree with him in his
terminator wrote:
Q:Is there any alternative?(I mean a true ** modern general purpose
flexible** language with **suitable for mixed-level programming**)?
If I'm not mistaken Ada was intended to be one, but it never got
widely popular.
___
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Wolfgang Draxinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I know only the comments Linus Torvalds made about the
implications of using C++ to develop a kernel. And I totally
agree with him in his statements. Programming a kernel you want
to control every bit of the
John Hasler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does Linus Torvalds not like C++?
He does not think that it is suitable for kernel programming. He's right.
Real *men* don't eat quiche. Real *programmers* write in assembler -- one
machine instruction at a time.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
in which 5-deep derived classes are not
unlikely, has led to the C++ equivalent
of spaghetti code.
Go troll somewhere else, Linus Torvalds.
Does Linus Torvalds not like C++?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
and
seem even to require illegible coding practices
in which 5-deep derived classes are not
unlikely, has led to the C++ equivalent
of spaghetti code.
Go troll somewhere else, Linus Torvalds.
Does Linus Torvalds not like C++?
No, he does
fnegroni wrote:
Does Linus Torvalds not like C++?
No, he does not :-)
Well, I know only the comments Linus Torvalds made about the
implications of using C++ to develop a kernel. And I totally
agree with him in his statements. Programming a kernel you want
to control every bit of the program
John Bode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
Sort of. It refers to the buildup of amyloid plaques (sheets of
protein, IIUC) in the brain tissue of Alzheimer's sufferers. I think
this is closer to the meaning the OP is going for.
If you are interested in computer models of amyloid, see my
++ equivalent
of spaghetti code.
But how to describe it? Commonly people
simply call it bad coding practices but this
is too general. It's like calling a traffic accident
bad driving practices. What then is the
term for an accident in C++? To describe this
build-up of tangled incomprehensible bloat
to the C++ equivalent
of spaghetti code.
Go troll somewhere else, Linus Torvalds.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:03:29 -0700, Campy Happer wrote:
some nonsense
Can we phuleeeze not feed the troll.
plonk
--
Lionel B
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Campy Happer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I shall propose a new term:
C++ plaque.
It is similar to the plaque build-up in
Alzheimer's insofar as it impairs memory,
makes the programmer confused about
what is located where and what day it is.
In addition, when
libraries
such as STL and Boost, which permit and
seem even to require illegible coding practices
in which 5-deep derived classes are not
unlikely, has led to the C++ equivalent
of spaghetti code.
But how to describe it?
In the one and only true way. The object-oriented version of
Spaghetti code
42 matches
Mail list logo
