Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > c++ interpreter

Reply
Thread Tools

c++ interpreter

 
 
Julie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2004
Phlip wrote:
<big snip>

You didn't add anything of value to the conversation -- just rehashed what you
already think.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Buster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2004
Phlip wrote:

> Wrong. Syntax checking makes errors like 10/*pointer easier to spot.
> Less bugs. And modern syntax checking performs static type analysis to
> display compilation errors before you compile - see Eclipse. But C++
> can't use this feature, because our compilers _can_ build executables
> with errors!


What language has stronger static type checking than C++?

--
Regards,
Buster.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Buster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2004
Julie wrote:

> Phlip wrote:
> <big snip>
>
> You didn't add anything of value to the conversation -- just rehashed what you
> already think.


Suggested comeback: no _you_ shut up!

--
Regards,
Buster.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tom_usenet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2004
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 17:28:03 GMT, "Pete" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Besides, VC++2003 is a great IDE + compiler, anyway.


The compiler is fine, but the IDE is not. I've never found a good C++
ide - good ones for other languages (such as Java - IntelliJ and
Eclipse) are common.

C++'s TU-based rather than module-based approach (not to mention other
features of the preprocessor) makes it almost impossible to write what
I would consider a good IDE for C++.

Tom
--
C++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
tom_usenet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2004
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:57:14 +0100, Buster <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Phlip wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Syntax checking makes errors like 10/*pointer easier to spot.
>> Less bugs. And modern syntax checking performs static type analysis to
>> display compilation errors before you compile - see Eclipse. But C++
>> can't use this feature, because our compilers _can_ build executables
>> with errors!

>
>What language has stronger static type checking than C++?


Java for one. C++ allows some ridiculous implicit conversions (such as
double->char) in the interests of backwards compatibility with C.

Tom
--
C++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2004
tom_usenet wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 17:28:03 GMT, "Pete" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Besides, VC++2003 is a great IDE + compiler, anyway.

>
> The compiler is fine, but the IDE is not. I've never found a good C++
> ide - good ones for other languages (such as Java - IntelliJ and
> Eclipse) are common.
>
> C++'s TU-based rather than module-based approach (not to mention other
> features of the preprocessor) makes it almost impossible to write what
> I would consider a good IDE for C++.
>
> Tom


I've always thought it was a great IDE. What can the Java ones that you
mentioned do that C++ ones cannot?

- Pete


 
Reply With Quote
 
Claudio Puviani
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2004
"Buster" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> Phlip wrote:
>
> > Wrong. Syntax checking makes errors like 10/*pointer
> > easier to spot. Less bugs. And modern syntax checking
> > performs static type analysis to display compilation errors
> > before you compile - see Eclipse. But C++ can't use this
> > feature, because our compilers _can_ build executables
> > with errors!

>
> What language has stronger static type checking than C++?


Ada, Pascal, Modula 2 & 3, Oberon, Concurrent Euclid, Java, C#... just to
name a few off the top of my head. The fact that C++'s static type checking
is strong enough, but not overly constraining is one of its strengths. Any
stronger and it falls in the language-designer-is-holier-than-thou family of
languages.

Claudio Puviani


 
Reply With Quote
 
Christoph Rabel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2004
Pete wrote:
> tom_usenet wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 17:28:03 GMT, "Pete" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Besides, VC++2003 is a great IDE + compiler, anyway.

>>
>>The compiler is fine, but the IDE is not. I've never found a good C++
>>ide - good ones for other languages (such as Java - IntelliJ and
>>Eclipse) are common.
>>
>>C++'s TU-based rather than module-based approach (not to mention other
>>features of the preprocessor) makes it almost impossible to write what
>>I would consider a good IDE for C++.

>
> I've always thought it was a great IDE. What can the Java ones that you
> mentioned do that C++ ones cannot?


Now, for example refactoring, highlighting functions that are never
called (at least private ones), highlighting unnecessary imports, better
intellisense,...

But Java makes a lot of this stuff easier, in C++ things are often more
complicated.

Download this plugin for VS and you will hate to work without it:
Visual Assist from www.wholetomato.com
(No, I'm not in any way affiliated with that company, I just think the
tool is great!)

Christoph
 
Reply With Quote
 
Phlip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2004
Buster wrote:

> Phlip wrote:
>
> > Wrong. Syntax checking makes errors like 10/*pointer easier to spot.
> > Less bugs. And modern syntax checking performs static type analysis to
> > display compilation errors before you compile - see Eclipse. But C++
> > can't use this feature, because our compilers _can_ build executables
> > with errors!

>
> What language has stronger static type checking than C++?


In Java, if you neglect to add a throws declaration, the compiler diagnoses
this.

In Eiffel, you can attach pre- and post-conditions, expressed in the
language as assertions, to types such that derived types inherit these
contracts from their base types.

In C++, if you neglect to make a base class destructor virtual, then destroy
thru a base class pointer, you get undefined behavior. If you write a throws
declaration that misses a type, when that type throws you abort the program.
Etc.

C++ is weakly typed.

--
Phlip
http://www.xpsd.org/cgi-bin/wiki?Tes...UserInterfaces


 
Reply With Quote
 
Buster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2004
Buster wrote:

> Phlip wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Syntax checking makes errors like 10/*pointer easier to spot.
>> Less bugs. And modern syntax checking performs static type analysis to
>> display compilation errors before you compile - see Eclipse. But C++
>> can't use this feature, because our compilers _can_ build executables
>> with errors!

>
> What language has stronger static type checking than C++?


[Re. other replies.] OK, you got me. But what I'm trying to get at is
that quote - "C++ can't use this feature" - what's that about? There are
syntax errors in C++.

--
Regards,
Buster.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
bash: ./firefox-installer: /bin/sh: bad interpreter: Permission denied damon Firefox 7 08-29-2007 08:50 PM
Python embedded interpreter: how to initialize the interpreter ? ycollet@freesurf.fr Python 3 01-03-2007 01:00 AM
defining subroutines when using interpreter interactively? MackS Perl 0 03-11-2005 01:26 AM
Need a good book help me do interpreter adam Perl 0 09-01-2003 03:38 PM
bash: /root/remstats.pl: /usr/bin/perl: bad interpreter: Permission denied Goblin Perl 1 08-14-2003 11:11 AM



Advertisments