Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > Newbies don't learn C++

Reply
Thread Tools

Newbies don't learn C++

 
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2011
I was programming Windows COM Objects 10 years ago , and I'm not interested
in that anymore.Its old tech.
It appears to me that "the C++ community" has become very confused, since I
last visisted the world of C++.

10 years ago C++ was usefull because of the rapid growth of microsoft
windows, but thats old tech and its all been done. Who cares about MS
windows as long as they can watch you-tube and blog with their mates.
XBOX and IPOD is the current fashion, the latest thing being IPOD APPS. Java
is much more portable across the constantly changing hardware fashions that
is the world we live in today.


WHy should anyone try to learn a programming language that is unneccessarily
overly complicated by unclear confused and undefined standards. C++ seems
caught up in a chiken-egg scenario with the C++ standard/s and they are
still arguing about the same **** they were 10 years ago.
Some people refuse to accept the term object as it is widely used in
computer programming today.

In C++ a member function belongs to an object, end of story, there is no
argument about this its a FACT.
I have been totally shunned by the 'C++ community' and dismissed as complete
nonsense by *supposed* experts. But its not complete nonsense it's a dead
sure fact.

In 10 years time C++ will be useless knowledge, as fortran or basic is
today. It seems like even the people who are writing the standards now think
a member function belongs to a class. And it seems nowadays that the
standards are defining the implementation of the language, and not a
definiton of the language(as they should be).

My second-hand book shop now has two C++ books for sale at 30p each, thanks
to my donation. I will not be replacing them.

If after 10 years the current standard is such confused *******s then it's
certainly not going to be any better in C++ 0x . There is a high probably it
will introduce more confusion into the minds of these people who are doing
nothing more than killing what used to be a very well defined and respected
programming language.

C++.............................Your fired!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGrTE...=43&playnext=2

Stuart also thought he was a professional and expert.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-12-2011
On 01/12/11 01:04 PM, Leigh Johnston wrote:

[nonsense snipped]

> I thought you had unsubscribed from this newsgroup?


Please don't feed the troll!

Fully quoting its nonsense is a great way to bypass message filters...

--
Ian Collins
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-12-2011

"Leigh Johnston" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 11/01/2011 23:37, Paul wrote:
>> I was programming Windows COM Objects 10 years ago , and I'm not
>> interested
>> in that anymore.Its old tech.
>> It appears to me that "the C++ community" has become very confused, since
>> I
>> last visisted the world of C++.
>>
>> 10 years ago C++ was usefull because of the rapid growth of microsoft
>> windows, but thats old tech and its all been done. Who cares about MS
>> windows as long as they can watch you-tube and blog with their mates.
>> XBOX and IPOD is the current fashion, the latest thing being IPOD APPS.
>> Java
>> is much more portable across the constantly changing hardware fashions
>> that
>> is the world we live in today.
>>
>>
>> WHy should anyone try to learn a programming language that is
>> unneccessarily
>> overly complicated by unclear confused and undefined standards. C++ seems
>> caught up in a chiken-egg scenario with the C++ standard/s and they are
>> still arguing about the same **** they were 10 years ago.
>> Some people refuse to accept the term object as it is widely used in
>> computer programming today.
>>
>> In C++ a member function belongs to an object, end of story, there is no
>> argument about this its a FACT.
>> I have been totally shunned by the 'C++ community' and dismissed as
>> complete
>> nonsense by *supposed* experts. But its not complete nonsense it's a dead
>> sure fact.
>>
>> In 10 years time C++ will be useless knowledge, as fortran or basic is
>> today. It seems like even the people who are writing the standards now
>> think
>> a member function belongs to a class. And it seems nowadays that the
>> standards are defining the implementation of the language, and not a
>> definiton of the language(as they should be).
>>
>> My second-hand book shop now has two C++ books for sale at 30p each,
>> thanks
>> to my donation. I will not be replacing them.
>>
>> If after 10 years the current standard is such confused *******s then
>> it's
>> certainly not going to be any better in C++ 0x . There is a high
>> probably it
>> will introduce more confusion into the minds of these people who are
>> doing
>> nothing more than killing what used to be a very well defined and
>> respected
>> programming language.
>>
>> C++.............................Your fired!
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGrTE...=43&playnext=2
>>
>>
>> Stuart also thought he was a professional and expert.
>>

>
> I thought you had unsubscribed from this newsgroup?
>
> In C++ a member function is a part of a class not part of an object.


When a member function is invoked for an object, the class is of no
relevance. A class is only necessary to create an object, after an object
has been created the class does not even need to exist. Only the function
definiton is required.

An object is bound to a member function dependant on the calling mechanism.
Whether it be a pointer within the object or an pointer in a register, or
whatever calling mechanism is used. The same cannot be said for a class.

A member function cannot be invoked if there is no object present, therefore
it follows that a member function cannot exist unless an object exists.The
same cannot be said for a class.
I know a non virtual member function can be invoked directly with a pointer
but this is probably not legal as it break scope rules.

The general concept of objects, in an OOP context, is that a member function
is encapsualted within an object. And C++ is a language that supports OOP,
therefore C++ supports this concept.

All of the above are perfectly good arguments to suggest that a member
function belongs to an object, unless you can prove otherwise.


You have not given one single argument to suggest a member function belongs
to a class. The only argument you have is to switch the context from runtime
to a precompile time class. And even with this very weak argument it only
proves the function is 'declared' in a class.
The very fact that a function is declared in a class suggests a member
function does belong to an object. As a class is the definition of an
object(or an objects type if you want to get pedantic).

Oh you also gave the argument that 'we' all think so therefore 'we' must be
correct.

What happens if you create a singleton object then overwrite its typdef?
Where does this class of yours exist, other than some source file.?




 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-12-2011

"Ian Collins" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 01/12/11 01:04 PM, Leigh Johnston wrote:
>
> [nonsense snipped]
>
>> I thought you had unsubscribed from this newsgroup?

>
> Please don't feed the troll!
>
> Fully quoting its nonsense is a great way to bypass message filters...
>
> --
> Ian Collins
>


I would like to remind Ian that he was very recently proved wrong in
learn.c-c++ .
re: Ian Collins wrote..



 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Maurice
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-12-2011
On Jan 11, 5:05*pm, "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Oh you also gave the argument that 'we' all think so therefore 'we' must be
> correct.


Over matters of definition and terminology, yes.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rui Maciel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-12-2011
Leigh Johnston wrote:

> If you disagree with me try looking at the assembler generated during
> compilation. I suspect you don't know how to program in assembler
> because if you did you wouldn't have started any of these bullshit
> threads of yours (assuming you are not a troll).


I don't believe that by now there is any doubt that this Paul is a troll.
All the personal attacks, the name calling and the insistence to reiterate
nonsense no matter how many times people point out his misconceptions and
mistakes are a clear indication that this character's purpose is to troll
a hand full of newsgroups.


Rui Maciel
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-12-2011

"Leigh Johnston" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 12/01/2011 01:05, Paul wrote:
>>
>> "Leigh Johnston" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> You have not given one single argument to suggest a member function
>> belongs to a class. The only argument you have is to switch the context
>> from runtime to a precompile time class. And even with this very weak
>> argument it only proves the function is 'declared' in a class.
>> The very fact that a function is declared in a class suggests a member
>> function does belong to an object. As a class is the definition of an
>> object(or an objects type if you want to get pedantic).

>
> Member functions only exist as separate entities during compilation where
> they are part of classes.


Leigh the very first line of your post makes no sense and that is not having
a go at you.
MF's only exists as seperatae entites to what?......or are you saying
members and functions are the two entities to be seperated ?
As it stands I need to guess at what you are trying to say, perhaps english
is not your first language(seriously) so I will not be cheeky about it.
No I read it 10 times and i simply cannot work out what that sentence above
is suppose to mean, please rephrase it

> After compilation/linking member functions live in the code segment
> alongside non-member functions and like classes cease to exist as separate
> entities.


C++ is not restricted to the IBM PC program format, but I accept it if you
choose to use this program format as an example to explain.
Functions don't *live* in the code section, you are thinking of the set of
instruction that are the "function definition". The function proper doesn't
live until it's been invoked.
But I also accept that this function definition can be, and usually is,
referred to as simply 'the function'.

I do not understand the last part of your above para re: "and like classes
cease to exist as separate entities.".
If something is seperate is must be seperate from something else, it can't
just be defined to be a 'seperate entity' on its own.


> How can something that no longer exists as a separate entity be part of
> an object?


What no longer exists and as a seperate entity and from what other entity
has it been seperated?

>
> The compiler provided passing of an object's "this" pointer to what was a
> member function during compilation is no different to the passing of any
> other function argument modulo the possible use of a register rather than
> the stack.


What does the compiler have to do with the invokation of a member function?
The compiler doesn't pass any pointers , this is all processed by the CPU.
It's an instruction pointer, and CPU stack and registers blah blah, I don't
even want to go there for any given implementation.

>
> If you disagree with me try looking at the assembler generated during
> compilation. I suspect you don't know how to program in assembler because
> if you did you wouldn't have started any of these bullshit threads of
> yours (assuming you are not a troll).


I don't claim to be any expert on x86 assembly , but you seem to think you
are. Classes with inheretance in ASM is very advanced stuff and if you can
understand exactly how that works on a modern IBM PC by simply reading the
ASM code from a linker output then you possess a talent most human beings do
not have.

>
> Of course one can talk about a theoretical C++ implementation (e.g. an
> interpreter) which contradicts what I have said above but most of us live
> in the real world using traditional C++ implementations.
>

But we're not talking aobut a theoretical implementation , we're talking
about real implementations.
On a typical windows system for example, when you create a C++ program the
class is compiled/linked to a typedef in program code. The class is then
discarded and no longer exists.
You suggest you know assembly so surely you know how you create a class type
in ASM. You simply typedef the construct in whatever segment you choose.
>>
>> Oh you also gave the argument that 'we' all think so therefore 'we' must
>> be correct.

>
> "we" are correct yes; "you" are wrong.
>

You have given no reasonable argument to prove this. Additionally the onus
is on you to provide evidence, as you are the one claiming me to be wrong.

>> What happens if you create a singleton object then overwrite its typdef?
>> Where does this class of yours exist, other than some source file.?

>
> I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
>
> /Leigh
>

Ok create a program with an object typedeffed at text seg offsett 0xFF.
1)The program creates an object on the heap
2) The program loads EAX with the address of the member function ( say code
seg offset 0xFE)
3) The program invokes the objects member function by calling JMP EAX
4) The code that resides at code seg offset 0xFE( the functions
instructions) executes the following MOV [CS reg]+0xFF, 00000000

This is a very basic example of how an object can overwrite its own typdef,
there is no connection to the class AT ALL at this point.
This is an extreme example that would very rarely be done unless the memory
availabe was very limited.
It is intended to disprove your suggestion that a function is stored inside
a *class* at pogram code level. A class is a compile time entity unless you
are referring to class members(statics).


You seem to be applying pre-compile time jargon in the context of code
segments etc.

Wouldn't be surprised if you try to say template parameters are defined in
obj files next.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Juha Nieminen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-12-2011
In comp.lang.c++ Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 10 years ago C++ was usefull because of the rapid growth of microsoft
> windows, but thats old tech and its all been done. Who cares about MS
> windows as long as they can watch you-tube and blog with their mates.
> XBOX and IPOD is the current fashion, the latest thing being IPOD APPS. Java
> is much more portable across the constantly changing hardware fashions that
> is the world we live in today.


You once again brilliantly demonstrate your complete ignorance.

Neither the "XBOX" (by which I assume you mean the Xbox 360) nor the
"IPOD" (by which I assume you mean the iPhone family of devices, including
the iPhone, the iPod Touch and the iPad) are programmed in Java.

iPhone apps are made in either Objective-C or Objective-C++ (which is
a mix between Objective-C and C++).

Xbox 360 games are written principally in whatever language the game
houses want to use, but it's often C++ (because the major game engines
are usually written in C++), and whatever scripting language the particular
game engine supports. Users can write so-called "arcade games" in C#.
 
Reply With Quote
 
ptyxs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-12-2011
The content of this thread as well as the content of other threads by
the same author Paul, shows clearly that this guy just opens pure
trolls : please, don't feed the troll and let him discuss with
himself.
All that is a mere waste of time and energy.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-12-2011

"Juha Nieminen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4d2ddaa9$0$32156$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In comp.lang.c++ Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> 10 years ago C++ was usefull because of the rapid growth of microsoft
>> windows, but thats old tech and its all been done. Who cares about MS
>> windows as long as they can watch you-tube and blog with their mates.
>> XBOX and IPOD is the current fashion, the latest thing being IPOD APPS.
>> Java
>> is much more portable across the constantly changing hardware fashions
>> that
>> is the world we live in today.

>
> You once again brilliantly demonstrate your complete ignorance.


You are the ignorant one.
>
> Neither the "XBOX" (by which I assume you mean the Xbox 360) nor the
> "IPOD" (by which I assume you mean the iPhone family of devices, including
> the iPhone, the iPod Touch and the iPad) are programmed in Java.


I never said an xbox game or OS was programmed in java, and I nevers said
what language any apple i-turds were programmed in either.
>
> iPhone apps are made in either Objective-C or Objective-C++ (which is
> a mix between Objective-C and C++).
>
> Xbox 360 games are written principally in whatever language the game
> houses want to use, but it's often C++ (because the major game engines
> are usually written in C++), and whatever scripting language the
> particular
> game engine supports. Users can write so-called "arcade games" in C#.
>

I doubt you will be coding any XBOX titles in your lifetime.


The only reference i made to Java was to suggest it is much more portable
across ALL of the new devices that are the current fashion.
i.e: mobile phones, since you obviously need an example to explain this.


 
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
Some information for the one who decided to learn C++, and now wantsto learn at least a bit of C? Alexander C Programming 20 09-11-2010 01:04 AM
How we recognize newbies as newbies Alf P. Steinbach C++ 31 08-21-2007 05:12 PM
Learn the language before you learn the GUI. CoreyWhite C++ 1 03-31-2007 08:56 PM
Re: Newbies? - Usenet don't need no steenking newbies! =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?= Digital Photography 2 07-17-2004 02:26 PM
newbie question: should I learn TKinter or skip it and learn more advanced toolkit? Porky Pig Jr Python 3 05-12-2004 08:58 AM



Advertisments