In message i472rp$i4...@panix5.panix.com, Aahz wrote:
Heck, I learned Ada as a sixteen-year-old knowing only BASIC and Pascal.
Not so surprising, considering Ada was consciously modelled on Pascal.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article i3ahdl$ce...@reader1.panix.com,
Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote:
I also looked at Modula-3 once, and thought it had some real promise,
but I think it's probably deader than Ada now.
That's because you should be using Oberon instead.
--
Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com)
In article 7xeieevrze@ruckus.brouhaha.com,
Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
I'm not sure what the hiring issue is. I think anyone skilled in C++ or
Java can pick up Ada pretty easily. It's mostly a subset of C++ with
different surface syntax.
Heck, I learned Ada as a
In message
44d30ac7-931e-4eb0-9aed-f664c872d...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com,
sturlamolden wrote:
A C++ compiler can use Python's header files and link with Python's C API
correctly. But it cannot compile Python's C source code. A C compiler
is required to compile and build Python.
Since
On 2010-08-14, Aahz a...@pythoncraft.com wrote:
Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
I'm not sure what the hiring issue is. I think anyone skilled in C++ or
Java can pick up Ada pretty easily. It's mostly a subset of C++ with
different surface syntax.
Heck, I learned Ada as a
sturlamolden wrote:
On 11 Aug, 08:40, Ulrich Eckhardt eckha...@satorlaser.com wrote:
Header (definition) and source (implementation) is not the same.
I'm aware of this and that's not the thing I was talking about.
Uli
--
Sator Laser GmbH
Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht
Martin v. Loewis wrote:
Am 10.08.2010 09:06, schrieb Ulrich Eckhardt:
When asked on the developers' list, it was said that this was
intended for compatibility with C++, e.g. in cases where people
want to embed Python into their C++ projects. Of course, this
contradicts Christian's statement
On 11 Aug, 08:40, Ulrich Eckhardt eckha...@satorlaser.com wrote:
That's true, maybe I don't remember the exact rationale. Especially if even
someone like you, who is much deeper into Python development, doesn't, I'm
wondering if I'm misremembering something
Header (definition) and source
Carl Banks wrote:
I highly doubt the Python source would build with a C++ compiler.
As Christian showed, it doesn't. However, look around the sources a bit.
There are lots of places where e.g. the returnvalue of malloc() (or,
rather, the macro that resolves to something like it) is explicitly
In message mailman.1863.1281378450.1673.python-l...@python.org, Christian
Heimes wrote:
There isn't really a point in cluttering the source with type casts.
Makes you wonder why they bothered using a typed language at all.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Aug 10, 12:06 am, Ulrich Eckhardt eckha...@satorlaser.com wrote:
Carl Banks wrote:
I highly doubt the Python source would build with a C++ compiler.
As Christian showed, it doesn't. However, look around the sources a bit.
There are lots of places where e.g. the returnvalue of malloc()
Am 10.08.2010 09:06, schrieb Ulrich Eckhardt:
Carl Banks wrote:
I highly doubt the Python source would build with a C++ compiler.
As Christian showed, it doesn't. However, look around the sources a bit.
There are lots of places where e.g. the returnvalue of malloc() (or,
rather, the macro
candide wrote:
Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main
implementation is written in pure and old C90. Is it for historical
reasons?
The fact that Python is OOP doesn't mean that the implementation of it has
to be written using an OOP language.
Other than that, I'm actually
On Aug 9, 6:39 am, Ulrich Eckhardt eckha...@satorlaser.com wrote:
candide wrote:
Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main
implementation is written in pure and old C90. Is it for historical
reasons?
The fact that Python is OOP doesn't mean that the implementation of it
I highly doubt the Python source would build with a C++ compiler.
C++ is 'mostly' 'backwards' compatible with C insofar as you can
pretty easily write C code that is also legal (and semantically
equivalent) C++. But if you don't actively try to write code that is
compatible with both
In message 8c4g22f5l...@mid.individual.net, Gregory Ewing wrote:
FWIW, certain parts of the Darwin kernel are written in a
carefully-selected subset of C++. So Apple evidently think
that it makes sense to use some C++ in a Unix kernel under
some circumstances.
I wonder if that explains
In message l6segt@spenarnc.xs4all.nl, Albert van der Horst wrote:
The bottom line is that to implement a programming language
you want to use a simpler programming language, not a more
complicated one.
That would rule out ever using a language to implement itself.
--
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
at one
time there was an experiment to make the kernel compilable with a C++
compiler, without actually using any C++ features. The result: they lost
about 10% in speed. That was enough to put the kernel developers off taking
the experiment any further.
FWIW,
In article roy-30c94b.20362001082...@news.panix.com,
Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
In article 4c55fe82$0$9111$426a3...@news.free.fr,
candide cand...@free.invalid wrote:
Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main
implementation is written in pure and old C90. Is it for
In article roy-2fc4e0.19455005082...@news.panix.com,
Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
In article i3e43n$v7...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message roy-6bcfa7.22564104082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote:
C++, for all its flaws, had one
Albert van der Horst alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:
We had a similar discussion on comp.lang.forth.
Heh, fancy meeting you here ;-)
The bottom line is that to implement a programming language
you want to use a simpler programming language, not a more
complicated one.
Nah, gas is written
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
In article i3e43n$v7...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message roy-6bcfa7.22564104082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote:
C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which
In article mailman.1666.1281075732.1673.python-l...@python.org,
David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, there are a few corner cases where valid C syntax has different
semantics in C and C++. Â But, they are very few. Â Calling C++ a superset
of C is essentially correct.
This is
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
In article mailman.1666.1281075732.1673.python-l...@python.org,
David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, there are a few corner cases where valid C syntax has different
semantics in C and C++. But, they are very few.
In message mailman.1681.1281102958.1673.python-l...@python.org, David
Cournapeau wrote:
I have yet seen a project where you could build C code with a C++
compiler - the only ones I know are specifically designed that way and
it is painful.
I seem to recall a FAQ entry, might have been on
In message 7xocdi56cp@ruckus.brouhaha.com, Paul Rubin wrote:
I'd say the Ada standardizers went to a great deal of trouble to specify
and document stuff that other languages simply leave undefined, leaving
developers relying on implementation-specific behavior that's not part
of the
In message roy-6bcfa7.22564104082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote:
C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which made it very
popular. It is a superset of C.
Actually, it never was.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
C++ is actually not that bad.
Can't compare it to C, but nothing compares to C...
I think the bad reputation it got (and still has) is from Microsoft's visual
studio IDE (that was and still is horrible)
A lot of good applications are written in C++, but many bad ones as well.
Sorry for swearing
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes:
In message roy-6bcfa7.22564104082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote:
C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which made it very
popular. It is a superset of C.
Actually, it never was.
Wondering off topic a bit - I am
On 08/05/10 05:33, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
OK, I have a copy of KR 2nd Ed on a shelf within reach here. Can you point
out some behaviour that C programmers might need to rely on, that is not
specified in that document?
need to is considerably different from might. Size of an
int,
On 8/2/2010 5:42 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 02/08/2010 00:08, candide wrote:
Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main
implementation is written in pure and old C90. Is it for historical
reasons?
C is not an OOL and C++ strongly is. I wonder if it wouldn't be more
suitable
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes:
OK, I have a copy of KR 2nd Ed on a shelf within reach here. Can you point
out some behaviour that C programmers might need to rely on, that is not
specified in that document?
C has all kinds of undefined behavior. Might need to
On Aug 1, 9:34 pm, Albert Hopkins mar...@letterboxes.org wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 01:08 +0200, candide wrote:
I would propose that in fact most programming languages are implemented
in C. Sun's (Oracle's) Java compiler and runtime are written in ANSI C.
The core of the Gnu Compiler
Paul Rubin:
C has all kinds of undefined behavior. Might need to rely on is not
relevant for this kind of issue. Ada's designers had the goal that that
Ada programs should have NO undefined behavior.
Ada achieves this by describing a long list of implementation defined
behaviour (Annex
In article i3e43n$v7...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message roy-6bcfa7.22564104082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote:
C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which made it very
popular. It is a superset of C.
Actually, it
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes:
I believe the life-support software on the International Space Station is
written in Ada. Would anybody feel happier if that had been done in C++?
Take a look at the articles on C bug-finding on Dawson Engler's page:
Grant Edwards:
That said, the last time I looked the Ada spec was only something like
100 pages long, so a case could be made that it won't take long to
learn. I don't know how long the C++ language spec is, but I'm
betting it's closer to 1000 than 100.
The Ada 2012 Language Reference
In message pv76o.2574$yv@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com, Neil
Hodgson wrote:
The Ada 2012 Language Reference Manual is 860 pages and the Ada 2005
LRM was 790 pages. The annotated versions are even longer
http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/ada12.html
Yeah, unfortunately the language
In message pan.2010.08.03.08.35.59.328...@nowhere.com, Nobody wrote:
One feature which can't readily be implemented in C is the automatic
clean-up side of the RAII idiom.
Use do-once blocks
http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/programming_discipline.html.
--
In message
7d95c0d3-718d-4958-9364-263c833f1...@i24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com,
sturlamolden wrote:
This is unsafe, anyone who writes this in C++ should be flogged:
Only if they’re using exceptions. Otherwise, it’s fine.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Carl Banks wrote:
On Aug 3, 7:07 pm, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
Mozilla is fed up with C++ and seems to be working on its own language,
called Rust:
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4009
That looks much better than Go.
It's like all the cool features of Go
On 2010-08-04, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid writes:
The issue that would prevent its use where I work is the inability to
hire anybody who knows Ada. ...
That said, the last time I looked the Ada spec was only something like
100 pages long,
On 2010-08-04, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
I'm not sure what the hiring issue is. I think anyone skilled in C++
or Java can pick up Ada pretty easily. It's mostly a subset of C++
with different surface syntax.
In my experience, the hiring issue is we're already behind schedule
On 2010-08-04, Neil Hodgson nyamatongwe+thun...@gmail.com wrote:
Grant Edwards:
That said, the last time I looked the Ada spec was only something like
100 pages long, so a case could be made that it won't take long to
learn. I don't know how long the C++ language spec is, but I'm
betting
In message i3bsjf$kf...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote:
In my experience, the hiring issue is we're already behind schedule
and short-handed, we don't have the time or resources to teach people
a new language.
Most people seem to need tutorials or handholding of some sort. Look at the
In message i3bseh$kf...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote:
The problem has nothing to do with the relative merits of the
languages. The problem is inertia.
So how was C++ able to get popular in the first place? And how was Java able
to grab some share from it?
--
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes:
The Ada 2012 Language Reference Manual is 860 pages ...
Yeah, unfortunately the language was designed by a committee ...
It seems apt to describe the resulting design as “bulletproof”, but
“elegant” or “concise” ... not so much.
On 2010-08-04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message i3bseh$kf...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote:
The problem has nothing to do with the relative merits of the
languages. The problem is inertia.
So how was C++ able to get popular in the first place?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes:
So how was C++ able to get popular in the first place? And how was
Java able to grab some share from it?
C++ made improvements over C that were necessary and welcome for
controlling the complexity of large programs, while remaining
On Aug 4, 4:04 pm, Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 2010-08-04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message i3bseh$kf...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote:
The problem has nothing to do with the relative merits of the
languages. The problem
On Aug 4, 4:23 pm, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
Java was also on the OO bandwagon of the 1990's, which
translated into good marketing back then, but is part of the cause of
the massive bureaucracy and bloat in the Java runtime environment. C++
seems to have made something of a
In article i3cqia$82...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message i3bseh$kf...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote:
The problem has nothing to do with the relative merits of the
languages. The problem is inertia.
So how was C++ able to
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:17:35 -0700, Peter wrote:
But I always used to tell
people - by the time I got a program to compile then I figured 99% of
the bugs were already discovered! Try that with C/C++ or almost any
other language you care to name :-)
ML and Haskell are also quite good for this
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:18:30 -0700, sturlamolden wrote:
Has it ever been planned to rewrite in C++ the historical implementation
(of course in an object oriented design) ?
OO programming is possible in C. Just take a look at GNOME and GTK.
One feature which can't readily be implemented in
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Nobody nob...@nowhere.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:18:30 -0700, sturlamolden wrote:
Has it ever been planned to rewrite in C++ the historical implementation
(of course in an object oriented design) ?
OO programming is possible in C. Just take a look at
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Nobody nob...@nowhere.com wrote:
One feature which can't readily be implemented in C is the automatic
clean-up side of the RAII idiom.
C is a Turing-Complete Language is it not ?
If so, therefore is it not true anything can be implemented ?
Even the automated
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:48:24 +1000, James Mills wrote:
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Nobody nob...@nowhere.com wrote:
One feature which can't readily be implemented in C is the automatic
clean-up side of the RAII idiom.
C is a Turing-Complete Language is it not ?
If so, therefore is it
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve-remove-t...@cybersource.com.au wrote:
True, but Nobody said it can't *readily* be implemented, not that it
can't be.
So he did too :) I read that as really :/
--James
--
-- James Mills
--
-- Problems are solved by method
--
Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes:
On Aug 1, 6:09 pm, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
Roy Smith r...@panix.com writes:
In article 4c55fe82$0$9111$426a3...@news.free.fr,
candide cand...@free.invalid wrote:
Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main
Albert Hopkins mar...@letterboxes.org writes:
But I wonder if someone has/has tried to write a programming language in
C++ and what were their experiences.
The Low Level Virtual Machine (LLVM) is a compiler infrastructure,
written in C++, which is designed for compile-time, link-time,
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com writes:
On 08/01/2010 07:09 PM, John Bokma wrote:
One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to distribute C
libraries than C++ libraries.
In the beginning of C++ there were programs that just converted C++ to C
(frontends). At least that is how
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:48:24 +1000, James Mills wrote:
One feature which can't readily be implemented in C is the automatic
clean-up side of the RAII idiom.
C is a Turing-Complete Language is it not ?
If so, therefore is it not true anything can be implemented ?
Even the automated
Nobody nob...@nowhere.com writes:
One feature which can't readily be implemented in C is the automatic
clean-up side of the RAII idiom.
I once did that by having an explicit stack of finalization records
linked through the call stack. The throw routine would traverse the
links to call the
On 2010-08-02, Aahz a...@pythoncraft.com wrote:
In article f9e652d6-3945-4c18-92f3-b85b994fe...@k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
Peter peter.milli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 3, 7:42=A0am, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 02/08/2010 00:08, candide wrote:
I can't understand why any
On 2010-08-02, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com writes:
Sometimes, C++ is just the right tool for the job, despite all its
warts C++'s object semantics (guaranteed destruction, scoping,
etc) can sometimes work very well when you need the speed of
On Aug 3, 2:29 am, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes:
On Aug 1, 6:09 pm, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
Roy Smith r...@panix.com writes:
In article 4c55fe82$0$9111$426a3...@news.free.fr,
candide cand...@free.invalid wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com writes:
On 08/01/2010 07:09 PM, John Bokma wrote:
One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to distribute C
libraries than C++ libraries.
In the beginning of C++ there were programs that just converted C++ to C
(frontends). At
On 8/1/2010 5:36 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
In article4c55fe82$0$9111$426a3...@news.free.fr,
candidecand...@free.invalid wrote:
Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main
implementation is written in pure and old C90. Is it for historical
reasons?
C is not an OOL and C++
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:44 AM, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
On 8/1/2010 5:36 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
In article4c55fe82$0$9111$426a3...@news.free.fr,
candidecand...@free.invalid wrote:
Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main
implementation is written in pure and
Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid writes:
There's no computing problem so simple that it can't be solved in a
complex and obtuse manner in C++.
I know that's true of any language, but from what I've seen over the
years, it more true in C++.
Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes:
On Aug 3, 2:29 am, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
[..]
But they call both the C libraries in the same way.
Go look at the original claim, the one that you responded to. It's
much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries.
Yup,
Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us writes:
John Bokma wrote:
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com writes:
On 08/01/2010 07:09 PM, John Bokma wrote:
One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to
distribute C libraries than C++ libraries.
In the beginning of C++ there were programs that
John Bokma wrote:
Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us writes:
John Bokma wrote:
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com writes:
On 08/01/2010 07:09 PM, John Bokma wrote:
One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to
distribute C libraries than C++ libraries.
In the beginning of C++
On Aug 3, 3:19 pm, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes:
On Aug 3, 2:29 am, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
[..]
But they call both the C libraries in the same way.
Go look at the original claim, the one that you responded to. It's
In article 87aap3uyo7@castleamber.com,
John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
Go look at the original claim, the one that you responded to. It's
much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries.
Yup, and if I read it correctly the claim was: and that's why C++ was
not
Has it ever been planned to rewrite in C++ the historical implementation
(of course in an object oriented design) ?
Around the time Guido coined the term Python 3000 (i.e. in 2000), he
also said at a few occasions that it would be written in C++. He
subsequently dropped the idea, for the
In message i3982t$79...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote:
I've always thought Ada was a pretty nice embedded/systems languages,
but some of the initial implementations were indede horrible.
Well, there’s GNAT, the GNU Ada implementation. Seems pretty robust and
complete, while offering
On 2010-08-04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message i3982t$79...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote:
I've always thought Ada was a pretty nice embedded/systems languages,
but some of the initial implementations were indede horrible.
Well, there?s GNAT,
Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid writes:
Yep, I've installed Gnat a couple times with the intention of playing
around with it, but there's pretty much zero chance I could sell it at
the office in place of C/C++ for embedded stuff,
I wonder what the issues are. From everything I've
On 2010-08-04, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid writes:
Yep, I've installed Gnat a couple times with the intention of playing
around with it, but there's pretty much zero chance I could sell it
at the office in place of C/C++ for embedded stuff,
Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid writes:
The issue that would prevent its use where I work is the inability to
hire anybody who knows Ada. ...
That said, the last time I looked the Ada spec was only something like
100 pages long, so a case could be made that it won't take long to
learn.
On 4 Aug, 04:41, Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote:
The issue that would prevent its use where I work is the inability to
hire anybody who knows Ada. You can't hire anybody who knows C++
either, but you can hire lots of people who claim they do.
That is very true.
--
On Aug 3, 7:07 pm, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
Mozilla is fed up with C++ and seems to be working on its own language,
called Rust:
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4009
That looks much better than Go.
It's like all the cool features of Go without the annoying polemics.
In article
ba47afb4-5798-41da-85d3-bb60cf97c...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com,
sturlamolden sturlamol...@yahoo.no wrote:
On 4 Aug, 04:41, Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote:
The issue that would prevent its use where I work is the inability to
hire anybody who knows Ada. You
In message 7xmxt3uo4h@ruckus.brouhaha.com, Paul Rubin wrote:
It's more verbose than C, so coding in it takes more keystrokes, but it
looks to me like the general coding approach (modulo the extra keystrokes)
should be similar to that of C, Algol, and so on, and the results should
be quite
In message i3ajvt$93...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote:
That said, the last time I looked the Ada spec was only something like
100 pages long, so a case could be made that it won't take long to
learn. I don't know how long the C++ language spec is, but I'm
betting it's closer to 1000
In message roy-00f9bf.4104082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote:
There are, however, a lot of people who know a large enough subset of
C++ to be productive ...
I think there are some language features, knowledge of which has a negative
impact on productivity. :)
--
On Sun, 2010-08-01 at 20:01 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
Not every C programmer knows or wants to learn C++.
I think Terry is the only person that's mentioned this - but I'd like to
give extra support to it - I for one prefer C to C++ (as someone that
writes quite a lot of C extension modules).
On 2010-08-02, Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote:
In your opinion what would Python gain from a C++ implementation?
Greater buzzword-compliance -- an important characteristic highly
prized by Human-Resources poeple and mid-level managers here in the
US.
;)
--
Grant
--
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote:
In your opinion what would Python gain from a C++ implementation?
The elusive advantages of OO in C++ are relatively minor compared to
RIIA which would make reference counting much easier to deal with. But
even that is
On 08/02/2010 04:42 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-08-02, Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote:
In your opinion what would Python gain from a C++ implementation?
Greater buzzword-compliance -- an important characteristic highly
prized by Human-Resources poeple and mid-level managers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/01/2010 07:34 PM, Albert Hopkins wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 01:08 +0200, candide wrote:
Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main
implementation is written in pure and old C90. Is it for historical
reasons?
C is not
On 02/08/2010 00:08, candide wrote:
Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main
implementation is written in pure and old C90. Is it for historical
reasons?
C is not an OOL and C++ strongly is. I wonder if it wouldn't be more
suitable to implement an OOL with another one.
Has
On Aug 3, 7:42 am, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 02/08/2010 00:08, candide wrote:
snip
I can't understand why any serious programmer mentions C++. As soon as I
read it, I have to rush either to the kitchen to find a bowl to throw up
in, or head for the toilet so I can talk
On 08/02/2010 03:42 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
I can't understand why any serious programmer mentions C++. As soon as I
read it, I have to rush either to the kitchen to find a bowl to throw up
in, or head for the toilet so I can talk to the great white telephone.
Sometimes, C++ is just the
On 2 Aug, 01:08, candide cand...@free.invalid wrote:
Has it ever been planned to rewrite in C++ the historical implementation
(of course in an object oriented design) ?
OO programming is possible in C. Just take a look at GNOME and GTK.
Perl is written in C++. That is not enough to make me
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com writes:
Sometimes, C++ is just the right tool for the job, despite all its
warts C++'s object semantics (guaranteed destruction, scoping,
etc) can sometimes work very well when you need the speed of a
compiled language, but don't want to be quite as
On 2 Aug, 05:04, Tomasz Rola rto...@ceti.pl wrote:
And one should not forget about performance. C++ was for a long time
behind C, and even now some parts (like iostreams) should be avoided in
fast code.
For fast I/O one must use platform specific APIs, such as Windows' i/o
completion ports
On 3 Aug, 00:27, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
Certain folks in the functional-programming community consider OO to be
a 1980's or 1990's approach that didn't work out, and that what it was
really trying to supply was polymorphism. C++ programs these days
apparently tend to use
In article f9e652d6-3945-4c18-92f3-b85b994fe...@k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
Peter peter.milli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 3, 7:42=A0am, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 02/08/2010 00:08, candide wrote:
I can't understand why any serious programmer mentions C++. As soon as I
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
