08 Sep, 2013, Aelius wrote in the 62nd comment:
quixadhal said:
That's why I suggest using some language that's actually GOOD with text manipulation, if you're going to be rewriting things anyways. C -> C++ buys you some things, but C++ really isn't all that good at text manipulation. You can use std::string, but you'll still find yourself having to muck about with pointers and whatnot as you invoke system calls.
Why not use a language where strings are a base type, and that lets you easily manipulate them without counting bytes and converting back and forth all the time?
There are large chunks of most of the Dikurivative codebases that would be entirely unneeded if you used a language like perl, since all that one_argument() parsing stuff would be replaced by a few lines using split()…. all the memory management nonsense would be totally unused, since perl/ruby/python all use garbage collection, and allocate as you need things.
Why not use a language where strings are a base type, and that lets you easily manipulate them without counting bytes and converting back and forth all the time?
There are large chunks of most of the Dikurivative codebases that would be entirely unneeded if you used a language like perl, since all that one_argument() parsing stuff would be replaced by a few lines using split()…. all the memory management nonsense would be totally unused, since perl/ruby/python all use garbage collection, and allocate as you need things.
That's why I'm staying as far away from C++ as possible! As a famous computer scientist once said, there are only two things wrong with C++: the initial concept and the implementation. :)
08 Sep, 2013, Oliver wrote in the 63rd comment:
Aelius said:
That's why I'm staying as far away from C++ as possible! As a famous computer scientist once said, there are only two things wrong with C++: the initial concept and the implementation. :)
quixadhal said:
That's why I suggest using some language that's actually GOOD with text manipulation, if you're going to be rewriting things anyways. C -> C++ buys you some things, but C++ really isn't all that good at text manipulation. You can use std::string, but you'll still find yourself having to muck about with pointers and whatnot as you invoke system calls.
Why not use a language where strings are a base type, and that lets you easily manipulate them without counting bytes and converting back and forth all the time?
There are large chunks of most of the Dikurivative codebases that would be entirely unneeded if you used a language like perl, since all that one_argument() parsing stuff would be replaced by a few lines using split()…. all the memory management nonsense would be totally unused, since perl/ruby/python all use garbage collection, and allocate as you need things.
Why not use a language where strings are a base type, and that lets you easily manipulate them without counting bytes and converting back and forth all the time?
There are large chunks of most of the Dikurivative codebases that would be entirely unneeded if you used a language like perl, since all that one_argument() parsing stuff would be replaced by a few lines using split()…. all the memory management nonsense would be totally unused, since perl/ruby/python all use garbage collection, and allocate as you need things.
That's why I'm staying as far away from C++ as possible! As a famous computer scientist once said, there are only two things wrong with C++: the initial concept and the implementation. :)
As a less famous computer scientist once said (me): "The only thing wrong with C++ is that it's too newfangled and not C."
C coders… represent?
08 Sep, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 64th comment:
"Often, when people have trouble with C++, the real problem is that they don't have appropriate libraries–or that they can't find the libraries that are available … one serious problem is that currently, too many software developers are undereducated and undertrained." – Bjarne Stroustrup
08 Sep, 2013, Aelius wrote in the 65th comment:
KaVir said:
"Often, when people have trouble with C++, the real problem is that they don't have appropriate libraries–or that they can't find the libraries that are available … one serious problem is that currently, too many software developers are undereducated and undertrained." – Bjarne Stroustrup
He also said: "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
My personal favourite, though, is "C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung." (anonymous)
09 Sep, 2013, Oliver wrote in the 66th comment:
Aelius said:
He also said: "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
My personal favourite, though, is "C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung." (anonymous)
KaVir said:
"Often, when people have trouble with C++, the real problem is that they don't have appropriate libraries–or that they can't find the libraries that are available … one serious problem is that currently, too many software developers are undereducated and undertrained." – Bjarne Stroustrup
He also said: "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
My personal favourite, though, is "C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung." (anonymous)
I think you may be the least partial person to C++ that I've ever witnessed.
09 Sep, 2013, Aelius wrote in the 67th comment:
Oliver said:
I think you may be the least partial person to C++ that I've ever witnessed.
Aelius said:
He also said: "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
My personal favourite, though, is "C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung." (anonymous)
KaVir said:
"Often, when people have trouble with C++, the real problem is that they don't have appropriate libraries–or that they can't find the libraries that are available … one serious problem is that currently, too many software developers are undereducated and undertrained." – Bjarne Stroustrup
He also said: "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
My personal favourite, though, is "C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung." (anonymous)
I think you may be the least partial person to C++ that I've ever witnessed.
I only use it if I have no other choice… which is almost never (thankfully).
09 Sep, 2013, Runter wrote in the 68th comment:
So…. What is so bad about C++ that it rises to the level of comparing it to lung cancer exactly?
09 Sep, 2013, Aelius wrote in the 69th comment:
Runter said:
So…. What is so bad about C++ that it rises to the level of comparing it to lung cancer exactly?
To clarify, I didn't compare it to lung cancer - someone else did. I just found the quote humourous (and apt).
09 Sep, 2013, Runter wrote in the 70th comment:
Aelius said:
To clarify, I didn't compare it to lung cancer - someone else did. I just found the quote humourous (and apt).
Runter said:
So…. What is so bad about C++ that it rises to the level of comparing it to lung cancer exactly?
To clarify, I didn't compare it to lung cancer - someone else did. I just found the quote humourous (and apt).
Well, that doesn't really answer the question. Why do you think it's apt to compare C++ to lung cancer exactly?
09 Sep, 2013, Nathan wrote in the 71st comment:
This thread is seriously off topic. It's supposed to be about codebases and you're debating about languages.
09 Sep, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 72nd comment:
Nathan said:
This thread is seriously off topic. It's supposed to be about codebases and you're debating about languages.
Have you forgotten the First Law?
1. Threads about codebases will become "my language is better than yours."
2. Threads about improving clients or getting players will become quests into the true definition of a MUD.
3. Threads asking for advice will become OP ego boosters as any advice is systematically turned down.
10 Sep, 2013, Nathan wrote in the 73rd comment:
plamzi said:
Have you forgotten the First Law?
1. Threads about codebases will become "my language is better than yours."
2. Threads about improving clients or getting players will become quests into the true definition of a MUD.
3. Threads asking for advice will become OP ego boosters as any advice is systematically turned down.
Nathan said:
This thread is seriously off topic. It's supposed to be about codebases and you're debating about languages.
Have you forgotten the First Law?
1. Threads about codebases will become "my language is better than yours."
2. Threads about improving clients or getting players will become quests into the true definition of a MUD.
3. Threads asking for advice will become OP ego boosters as any advice is systematically turned down.
Be that as it may. Besides, it's not a law, just a commonly observed phenomenon.
10 Sep, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 74th comment:
Random Picks
That is, until you want to start using STL classes as data members in your C structs…
Actually, it shouldn't be a problem since in C++ class and struct are fundamentally the same thing, with distinction on defaulting to public in struct s case.
Not quite true. It has to do when an object is created using said struct. The proper constructors do not get called for your STL objects as they would in a class.