Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > C++14: Papers

Reply
Thread Tools

C++14: Papers

 
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2013
Christopher Pisz wrote:
> On 4/6/2013 8:56 PM, Tiib wrote:
>> On Sunday, 7 April 2013 02:44:59 UTC+3, Leigh Johnston wrote:
>>> On 05/04/2013 21:40, Rui Maciel wrote:
>>> boost.asio would be a great addition to C++.

>>
>> Yes, but currently it works only on POSIX or Windows AFAIK.
>>

>
>
> Furthermore, does it really buy you anything on POSIX? As far as I know,
> only Windows offers IO Completion ports for the implementation to take
> advantage of.
>
> Also, I've found boost::asio to be a real pain in my buttocks to debug.
> Offering output to std::cerr just doesn't do it when trying to find out
> who bound work to be completed. Seeing "My generic thread handler that
> could have been called from anywhere" at the top of the call stack isn't
> very useful. Some mechanism is needed to track down the binder in debugging.


+1. I've seen projects try and use boost.asio, but never successfully
or with any tangible benefit. The usual result is confused programmers!

--
Ian Collins
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tiib
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2013
On Saturday, 27 April 2013 03:03:25 UTC+3, Ian Collins wrote:
> Christopher Pisz wrote:
> > On 4/6/2013 8:56 PM, Tiib wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 7 April 2013 02:44:59 UTC+3, Leigh Johnston wrote:
> >>> boost.asio would be a great addition to C++.
> >>
> >> Yes, but currently it works only on POSIX or Windows AFAIK.
> >>

> >
> > Furthermore, does it really buy you anything on POSIX? As far as I know,
> > only Windows offers IO Completion ports for the implementation to take
> > advantage of.


It is just a library in boost, not sure. Some hate it and some like it.
A set of tools for asynchronous communication is handy ... even if
incomplete. What you then recommend for POSIX?

> > Also, I've found boost::asio to be a real pain in my buttocks to debug.
> > Offering output to std::cerr just doesn't do it when trying to find out
> > who bound work to be completed. Seeing "My generic thread handler that
> > could have been called from anywhere" at the top of the call stack isn't
> > very useful. Some mechanism is needed to track down the binder in debugging.

>
> +1. I've seen projects try and use boost.asio, but never successfully
> or with any tangible benefit. The usual result is confused programmers!


I have seen successful results. Performance improved (20 times on
cases) ... the result was easier to maintain. Certainly better than
nothing. Confusion arises when people try to mix asynchronous and
synchronous operations in same layer, but that is same with asio or
without it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
James Kanze
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2013
On Friday, April 26, 2013 5:38:36 AM UTC+1, Tony wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> > > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > > (E-Mail Removed) says...


> > > > On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:57:55 PM UTC+1, Tiib wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 13:36:24 UTC+3, James Kanze wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 2:50:59 PM UTC+1, Tiib wrote:


> > > > > > With the major difference that there doesn't seem to be any new
> > > > > > competition. C++ seems to have beat out Ada-95, and in a more
> > > > > > distant past, Objective-C and Modula-3, but since then, there's
> > > > > > not really been any new language which realistically attempts to
> > > > > > replace it.


> > > > > With Objective-C the competition is still quite close. Some like
> > > > > one some other. What are your criteria for competitive?


> > > > Actual use. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I
> > > > don't see any large scale applications being developed in
> > > > Objective-C. It's use seems to be limited to small "apps" for
> > > > one particular system.


> > > So do you feel, then, that C++'s primary domain is large-scale
> > > development and that is the litmus test upon which to judge
> > > competitive-with-C++ness? If not, what other criteria is
> > > relevant, in your opinion?


> > I don't feel anything about it, in particular. I simply
> > observe. In many cases, there simply isn't any viable
> > alternative. C++ wins by default. No other language is
> > actually being used for many types of applications, at least not
> > to any measurable extent.


> Are you "playing dumb", or are you an extreme in-the-box information
> processor?


I'm not playing dumb. I do actual work. I produce programs
that people use. I live in the real world.

> > > You say "actual use", but in the short term, a new language is
> > > going to be behind because of the existing base of C/C++ code
> > > and developers. I think a more strategic approach to thinking
> > > about it is necessary. That is, one should be capable of
> > > assessing the viability of a language offering given what it
> > > is feature-wise and how use of a particular language can be
> > > exploited going forward (aka, "forward-thinking"). By
> > > "feature-wise", I don't mean just thinks like "has move
> > > constructors", but also things like "is simple and elegant".


> > We can always dream.


> Apparently you can't, but said "we"?


As I sais above, I actually work at programming, producing
programs that people use. Imaginary languages which haven't (or
even can't) be implemented don't interest me. Especially when
the only definition of them is "better than X".

> > > > The fields I know best are network management and investment
> > > > banking. In both cases, the engines which actually do the work
> > > > are written almost exclusively in C++.


> > > Not insignificant is that your "position" (for lack of
> > > a better word that I can't think of right now) seems to lay
> > > down the criteria where C++ CAN compete: big budget software,
> > > where it can be afforded. There's no doubt about it, C++
> > > development is expensive.


> > I don't have a "position". I simply observe. One of my
> > observations (based on actual projects): the reason for choosing
> > C++ is that it is less expensive to develop software in it than
> > in other languages.


> Again, begs the question: are you "playing dumb"?


> (Aside: I like to get to the bottom of things. If it takes a
> bit of perturbance or instigation or controversy, so be it.)


The bottom of things is that I have to produce a working program
by the end of next month.

The bottom of things it that I have actual experience in doing
so, and that I've heard a lot of promesses, but that unless I
can see the results, they're just hot air.

> > > That is an "attack surface": a major, major problem inherent
> > > of C++, in that it is expensive to use.


> > Compared to what?


> Compared to a language built from the ground up with "easy to
> use" as a requirement and with no baggage from any past
> language.


Where are the specifications of this language? Where is the
concrete user experience, to prove that it is easy to use?

> > It's less expensive than Java, for example.


> But Java isn't the same kind of language.


> > The companies I see choosing C++ are choosing it because the
> > total development costs are lower than for other languages.


> Well if that is true, I should stop "trying to save the world"
> (in other circles), and focus on getting that language that I
> mention so often, implemented! As it is, though, I'm better at
> knowing what to do than actually doing it, so it's very slow
> going at times.


That might be a good idea. Walter did it with D, and while I
don't think it's better than C++, there are some good ideas in
it. And above all, I _can_ compare it, because I can use both,
and see the results.

> > [...]
> > > > C++ is superior
> > > > for large, stable applications which need to be maintained over
> > > > time.


> > > Superior to inferior existing languages,


> > It's hard to compare it with something that doesn't exist.


> Apparently for you it is. For me it is not.


OK. Since you obviously want to play the idiot, and not
understand politely worded English: it's impossible to compare
C++ (or Java, or C# or D) with a language which doesn't exist.
Because to compare, you have to actually develop programs in
each, and when it comes to developing programs, inexistance is a
killer defect.

> > Given that my comparisons are based on experience, and not
> > someone's pipe dreams.


> The adage goes, "when you can't compete, tout your
> "experience"". I would say "capability rules", but the
> unfortunate fact is that politics dictate. (The last sentence
> was along the "save the world" lines).


So now we have to invent adages, rather than present real
arguments.

> > > you mean, and not the languages under development currently
> > > (and perhaps I'm just starting on it today ) and yet to
> > > find success. (I'm not agreeing with you). YOU can say that,
> > > but you have many years of C++ use and knowledge, etc. YOU,
> > > though, are too expensive, and you know it. A better language
> > > would be one that makes you obsolete (I mean the two or three
> > > or more decade learning curve). Yes, YOU can create and
> > > maintain those very complex systems, some (perhaps much) of
> > > the complexity arising from the use of C++, but YOU and others
> > > like you are a small group. That is a problem awaiting
> > > solution. Agree?


> > People have been trying to make programming languages accessible
> > to non-professionals for years. The most blatent example is
> > COBOL (which was designed to look like human language).
> > Nobody's succeeded yet. It seems a safe bet that no body will
> > succeed before I retire.


> The reason it hasn't happened is because working in someone
> else's company, it couldn't be done, so I had to leave that
> world (I burnt every bridge on the way out too) and do it with
> the resources I had/have at my disposal, and mostly that
> was/is time. It could have been here 15 years ago, but
> politics prevented that from happening.


COBOL was _not_ invented by people working ins someone else's
company. Nor was Pascal, nor Prolog, nor Lisp, for that matter.

It turns out that, globally, working in someone else's company
(and having concrete users) seems to be an advantage.

--
James
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kanze
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2013
On Saturday, April 27, 2013 1:03:25 AM UTC+1, Ian Collins wrote:
> Christopher Pisz wrote:
> > On 4/6/2013 8:56 PM, Tiib wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 7 April 2013 02:44:59 UTC+3, Leigh Johnston wrote:
> >>> On 05/04/2013 21:40, Rui Maciel wrote:
> >>> boost.asio would be a great addition to C++.


> >> Yes, but currently it works only on POSIX or Windows AFAIK.


> > Furthermore, does it really buy you anything on POSIX? As far as I know,
> > only Windows offers IO Completion ports for the implementation to take
> > advantage of.


> > Also, I've found boost::asio to be a real pain in my buttocks to debug.
> > Offering output to std::cerr just doesn't do it when trying to find out
> > who bound work to be completed. Seeing "My generic thread handler that
> > could have been called from anywhere" at the top of the call stack isn't
> > very useful. Some mechanism is needed to track down the binder in debugging.


> +1. I've seen projects try and use boost.asio, but never successfully
> or with any tangible benefit. The usual result is confused programmers!


For most applications, threads will acheive anything asynch IO
could, in a more flexible manner. I used asynchronous IO back
in the 1970's, before we had threads (or even multiple
processes), but I don't see any real use for it today.

--
James
 
Reply With Quote
 
woodbrian77@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2013
On Saturday, April 27, 2013 9:47:53 PM UTC, James Kanze wrote:
> It turns out that, globally, working in someone else's company
>
> (and having concrete users) seems to be an advantage.
>


Over 200 people here are dead at the hands
of an employer.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04...in-bangladesh/



Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
http://webEbenezer.net
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> On Friday, April 26, 2013 5:38:36 AM UTC+1, Tony wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > > > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > > > (E-Mail Removed) says...

>
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:57:55 PM UTC+1, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 13:36:24 UTC+3, James Kanze wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 2:50:59 PM UTC+1, Öö Tiib wrote:

>
> > > > > > > With the major difference that there doesn't seem to be any new
> > > > > > > competition. C++ seems to have beat out Ada-95, and in a more
> > > > > > > distant past, Objective-C and Modula-3, but since then, there's
> > > > > > > not really been any new language which realistically attempts to
> > > > > > > replace it.

>
> > > > > > With Objective-C the competition is still quite close. Some like
> > > > > > one some other. What are your criteria for competitive?

>
> > > > > Actual use. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I
> > > > > don't see any large scale applications being developed in
> > > > > Objective-C. It's use seems to be limited to small "apps" for
> > > > > one particular system.

>
> > > > So do you feel, then, that C++'s primary domain is large-scale
> > > > development and that is the litmus test upon which to judge
> > > > competitive-with-C++ness? If not, what other criteria is
> > > > relevant, in your opinion?

>
> > > I don't feel anything about it, in particular. I simply
> > > observe. In many cases, there simply isn't any viable
> > > alternative. C++ wins by default. No other language is
> > > actually being used for many types of applications, at least not
> > > to any measurable extent.

>
> > Are you "playing dumb", or are you an extreme in-the-box information
> > processor?

>
> I'm not playing dumb. I do actual work. I produce programs
> that people use. I live in the real world.


You still seem, to me, to be avoiding giving substantive answers, hence I ask if
you are playing dumb or you truly cannot see that a from-the-ground-up
development of a new language targeting a big chunk of the space in which C++ is
now used, can be easily had. When I posed that to you, you went on your spiel
about "all the expressivity of C++", which is a non-substantive response IMO.

>
> > > > You say "actual use", but in the short term, a new language is
> > > > going to be behind because of the existing base of C/C++ code
> > > > and developers. I think a more strategic approach to thinking
> > > > about it is necessary. That is, one should be capable of
> > > > assessing the viability of a language offering given what it
> > > > is feature-wise and how use of a particular language can be
> > > > exploited going forward (aka, "forward-thinking"). By
> > > > "feature-wise", I don't mean just thinks like "has move
> > > > constructors", but also things like "is simple and elegant".

>
> > > We can always dream.

>
> > Apparently you can't, but said "we"?

>
> As I sais above, I actually work at programming, producing
> programs that people use.


But the design of a programming language is outside of your thinking ability?
Nothing wrong with that--not everyone is cut out to do that kind of thing.
Perhaps you are more of a programmer which works under the direction of others
who tell you what to program, how to program it and what language to use?

> Imaginary languages which haven't (or
> even can't) be implemented don't interest me.


To each there own, of course, but that is what I do (save for your attempted
slam using 'imaginary' and 'can't be implemented).

> Especially when
> the only definition of them is "better than X".


That's easy to say when the language being compared-to is C++, because it's
warts have been so heavily discussed for so long. But I think your track is that
anything that deviates from anything other than C++ simply cannot be better. Now
THAT is, to me, simply not worth discussing--I think they call that "fanboyism".

>
> > > > > The fields I know best are network management and investment
> > > > > banking. In both cases, the engines which actually do the work
> > > > > are written almost exclusively in C++.

>
> > > > Not insignificant is that your "position" (for lack of
> > > > a better word that I can't think of right now) seems to lay
> > > > down the criteria where C++ CAN compete: big budget software,
> > > > where it can be afforded. There's no doubt about it, C++
> > > > development is expensive.

>
> > > I don't have a "position". I simply observe. One of my
> > > observations (based on actual projects): the reason for choosing
> > > C++ is that it is less expensive to develop software in it than
> > > in other languages.

>
> > Again, begs the question: are you "playing dumb"?

>
> > (Aside: I like to get to the bottom of things. If it takes a
> > bit of perturbance or instigation or controversy, so be it.)

>
> The bottom of things is that I have to produce a working program
> by the end of next month.


It's not my problem. Good luck with that.

>
> The bottom of things it that I have actual experience in doing
> so, and that I've heard a lot of promesses, but that unless I
> can see the results, they're just hot air.


What promises are those?

I understand that you are a programmer and have a job to do. I, OTOH, I don't
care to develop the software I want to develop program until I have a language
worthwhile to program with (if something is worth doing, it's worth doing right,
IMO), and since there is not one of those available, I'm developing one. I think
it is noteworthy that I didn't start out developing a language--the need for a
language comes from software I plan on developing with the language.

>
> > > > That is an "attack surface": a major, major problem inherent
> > > > of C++, in that it is expensive to use.

>
> > > Compared to what?

>
> > Compared to a language built from the ground up with "easy to
> > use" as a requirement and with no baggage from any past
> > language.

>
> Where are the specifications of this language?


I have enough of them to have decided that it is worthwhile to develop that
language, and that's exactly what I'm doing, and it's getting easier all the
time as my language implementation skills mount.

> Where is the
> concrete user experience, to prove that it is easy to use?


Why do you keep harping about "existing languages" when I've said a zillion
times already that I'm in the process of implementing one from scratch?

>
> > > It's less expensive than Java, for example.

>
> > But Java isn't the same kind of language.

>
> > > The companies I see choosing C++ are choosing it because the
> > > total development costs are lower than for other languages.

>
> > Well if that is true, I should stop "trying to save the world"
> > (in other circles), and focus on getting that language that I
> > mention so often, implemented! As it is, though, I'm better at
> > knowing what to do than actually doing it, so it's very slow
> > going at times.

>
> That might be a good idea. Walter did it with D, and while I
> don't think it's better than C++, there are some good ideas in
> it.


I think there probably are, and certainly I know some of those things, but none
come to my mind at the moment that are remarkable. I do keep notes about it
though (as well as other languages).

> And above all, I _can_ compare it, because I can use both,
> and see the results.


To me, C++ and D are characteristically the same, save for the fact that D seems
to me to be "not ready for prime time". It probably needs a committee process to
robusticize it but that seems unfathomably difficult (to me). So, C++ "wins"
easily in my book when the two are compared.

>
> > > [...]
> > > > > C++ is superior
> > > > > for large, stable applications which need to be maintained over
> > > > > time.

>
> > > > Superior to inferior existing languages,

>
> > > It's hard to compare it with something that doesn't exist.

>
> > Apparently for you it is. For me it is not.

>
> OK. Since you obviously want to play the idiot, and not
> understand politely worded English: it's impossible to compare
> C++ (or Java, or C# or D) with a language which doesn't exist.


For me it's ridiculously easy, because I have a lot of the language design
solidly known and can do that comparison. But that isn't even required--one can
(apparently you can't or refuse to or feign that "it is impossible", etc.) take
a moment (or 10 years!) and compare, contrast, evaluate language features and
analyze combinations of them, etc. So, I really don't understand your seeming
lack of ability to do so. Are you ever in a role where you get to design what
you are assigned to program? Surely you've created a program from scratch at one
time or another, yes? What if your next gig was to develop a programming
language in which large scale projects could be developed at significant savings
compared to doing them with C++? To me, it seems like you'd balk "impossible,
can't be done, so I'm not even going to try". And you may be saying, when you
balk that, that YOU can't do that, but that hardly means that someone else also
can't. Hmm?

> Because to compare, you have to actually develop programs in
> each, and when it comes to developing programs, inexistance is a
> killer defect.


Well, if you want to persist in taking a stance as "an evaluator of programming
languages" or "programmer", OK. You can't drive home a 2014 Corvette today
either, but next year you will be able to. Same thing. Engineering takes time.
Everything you keep on saying, and I KNOW you must know this stuff, makes me
question if you are "playing dumb" or are truly incapable of grasping the
(simple) concepts.

>
> > > Given that my comparisons are based on experience, and not
> > > someone's pipe dreams.

>
> > The adage goes, "when you can't compete, tout your
> > "experience"". I would say "capability rules", but the
> > unfortunate fact is that politics dictate. (The last sentence
> > was along the "save the world" lines).

>
> So now we have to invent adages, rather than present real
> arguments.


It's a standard answer when someone throws out "experience" rather than
substance. Let's "call a spade a spade": you can't develop a programming
language "better" than C++, and apparently can't even conceive of such, while
some others, including myself, find that very non-taxing (save for the amount of
time and effort required). Who knows, you truly may be so into C++ that you
simply cannot step out from it long enough to even ENTERTAIN the thought of
there ever being something else. That's my take on it upon observation thus far.


>
> > > > you mean, and not the languages under development currently
> > > > (and perhaps I'm just starting on it today ) and yet to
> > > > find success. (I'm not agreeing with you). YOU can say that,
> > > > but you have many years of C++ use and knowledge, etc. YOU,
> > > > though, are too expensive, and you know it. A better language
> > > > would be one that makes you obsolete (I mean the two or three
> > > > or more decade learning curve). Yes, YOU can create and
> > > > maintain those very complex systems, some (perhaps much) of
> > > > the complexity arising from the use of C++, but YOU and others
> > > > like you are a small group. That is a problem awaiting
> > > > solution. Agree?

>
> > > People have been trying to make programming languages accessible
> > > to non-professionals for years. The most blatent example is
> > > COBOL (which was designed to look like human language).
> > > Nobody's succeeded yet. It seems a safe bet that no body will
> > > succeed before I retire.

>
> > The reason it hasn't happened is because working in someone
> > else's company, it couldn't be done, so I had to leave that
> > world (I burnt every bridge on the way out too) and do it with
> > the resources I had/have at my disposal, and mostly that
> > was/is time. It could have been here 15 years ago, but
> > politics prevented that from happening.

>
> COBOL was _not_ invented by people working ins someone else's
> company. Nor was Pascal, nor Prolog, nor Lisp, for that matter.
>
> It turns out that, globally, working in someone else's company
> (and having concrete users) seems to be an advantage.


That was an aside--I should have left out that info.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2013
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 9:47:53 PM UTC, James Kanze wrote:
>> It turns out that, globally, working in someone else's company
>>
>> (and having concrete users) seems to be an advantage.
>>

>
> Over 200 people here are dead at the hands
> of an employer.


and several million others can feed their families. What's your point?

--
Ian Collins
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2013
Tony wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>
>> On Friday, April 26, 2013 5:38:36 AM UTC+1, Tony wrote:
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>> (E-Mail Removed) says...

>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:57:55 PM UTC+1, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 13:36:24 UTC+3, James Kanze wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 2:50:59 PM UTC+1, Öö Tiib wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>> With the major difference that there doesn't seem to be any new
>>>>>>>> competition. C++ seems to have beat out Ada-95, and in a more
>>>>>>>> distant past, Objective-C and Modula-3, but since then, there's
>>>>>>>> not really been any new language which realistically attempts to
>>>>>>>> replace it.

>>
>>>>>>> With Objective-C the competition is still quite close. Some like
>>>>>>> one some other. What are your criteria for competitive?

>>
>>>>>> Actual use. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I
>>>>>> don't see any large scale applications being developed in
>>>>>> Objective-C. It's use seems to be limited to small "apps" for
>>>>>> one particular system.

>>
>>>>> So do you feel, then, that C++'s primary domain is large-scale
>>>>> development and that is the litmus test upon which to judge
>>>>> competitive-with-C++ness? If not, what other criteria is
>>>>> relevant, in your opinion?

>>
>>>> I don't feel anything about it, in particular. I simply
>>>> observe. In many cases, there simply isn't any viable
>>>> alternative. C++ wins by default. No other language is
>>>> actually being used for many types of applications, at least not
>>>> to any measurable extent.

>>
>>> Are you "playing dumb", or are you an extreme in-the-box information
>>> processor?

>>
>> I'm not playing dumb. I do actual work. I produce programs
>> that people use. I live in the real world.

>
> You still seem, to me, to be avoiding giving substantive answers, hence I ask if
> you are playing dumb or you truly cannot see that a from-the-ground-up
> development of a new language targeting a big chunk of the space in which C++ is
> now used, can be easily had. When I posed that to you, you went on your spiel
> about "all the expressivity of C++", which is a non-substantive response IMO.


When you have your improved language up and running everywhere C++ is
currently used, come back and let us know. I won't hold my breath.

--
Ian Collins
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> Tony wrote:
> > You still seem, to me, to be avoiding giving substantive answers, hence I

ask if
> > you are playing dumb or you truly cannot see that a from-the-ground-up
> > development of a new language targeting a big chunk of the space in which C++ is
> > now used, can be easily had. When I posed that to you, you went on your spiel
> > about "all the expressivity of C++", which is a non-substantive response IMO.

>
> When you have your improved language up and running everywhere C++ is
> currently used, come back and let us know. I won't hold my breath.


You're just trying to curb any discussions about the failings of C++. What do I
care if anyone else wants to use the language I'm developing? I'm making it for
myself. Maybe I don't even want anyone else to use it. No skin off my nose.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2013
Tony wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>
>> Tony wrote:
>>> You still seem, to me, to be avoiding giving substantive answers, hence I

> ask if
>>> you are playing dumb or you truly cannot see that a from-the-ground-up
>>> development of a new language targeting a big chunk of the space in which C++ is
>>> now used, can be easily had. When I posed that to you, you went on your spiel
>>> about "all the expressivity of C++", which is a non-substantive response IMO.

>>
>> When you have your improved language up and running everywhere C++ is
>> currently used, come back and let us know. I won't hold my breath.

>
> You're just trying to curb any discussions about the failings of C++. What do I
> care if anyone else wants to use the language I'm developing? I'm making it for
> myself. Maybe I don't even want anyone else to use it. No skin off my nose.


By all means discuss some and your proposed solutions. All you've added
to the discussion so far is noise.

--
Ian Collins
 
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
2nd Call for Papers | Extended deadline: April 07 |CENTERIS'2009 - Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems | 2nd Callfor Papers CENTERIS'2009 - Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems Python 0 03-16-2009 01:59 PM
Submitted papers for the Conference: 489. Accepted papers: 158. Fromthem 6 BEST papers are also accepted to the WSEAS journals Kostas I. C++ 0 11-29-2007 11:03 AM
Submitted papers for the Conference: 489. Accepted papers: 158. Fromthem 6 BEST papers are also accepted to the WSEAS journals shuchen. C Programming 0 11-29-2007 10:59 AM
call for papers INFO VHDL 0 08-20-2003 07:24 PM
DesignCon 2004 Call for Papers J. Bhasker VHDL 0 08-05-2003 04:13 PM



Advertisments