Thanks. C++ has now become the apotheosis of "no value-added complexity".
Even Bjarne Stroustrup admits to understanding only a small fraction of the whole. On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:50 AM, John Chludzinski <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Considering that the current C++ standard is >1600 pages and counting >> (still glomming on new "features"), I'm planning to try an OO style of C >> coding style. >> >> The standard's size (number of pages) being the best (and only >> *practical*) means to measure language complexity. >> > > Here is another thing I wrote talking about OO in PETSc: > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1711 > > Matt > > >> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:03 AM, John Chludzinski < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Is there a guide for how to write/develop PETSC OO C code? How a >>>> "class" is defined/implemented? How you implement inheritance? Memory >>>> management? Etc? >>>> >>> >>> We have a guide: http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/developers/developers.pdf >>> >>> If its not in there, you can mail the list. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> >>>> ---John >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their >>> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their >>> experiments lead. >>> -- Norbert Wiener >>> >>> http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/ >>> >> >> > > > -- > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their > experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their > experiments lead. > -- Norbert Wiener > > http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/ >
