C++ Archeology: Limits of OO paradigm

Discussion in 'C++' started by Grizlyk, Feb 19, 2008.

  1. Grizlyk

    Grizlyk Guest

    Just look at that!
    http://groups.google.ru/group/comp.lang.c /browse_frm/thread/566c99fb44d97ffd

    Kind Google found me the old (1992) discussion "Limits of OO paradigm" and
    i have dug up the buried by sands of years questions. And the discussion is
    quite correct just now! It is very interesting and instructive
    ("knowledgeful" - inspiring to get new useful knowledge or expirence).

    Let's consider speeches of some orators.

    > Jerry Schwarz, 22 may 1992
    >
    > Since Ian dislikes C++
    > I've been wondering why he was bothering
    > contributing to this group and now I see.


    This is very interesting idea - if you _agrumented_ do not agree with some
    "standard" opinions of "senior brothers" then you automatically "dislike
    C++", and automatically "are in wrong group".

    The unknown Jerry Schwarz was a real wizard here with a gift of
    prediction. His "feelings" became primary opinion of the c.l.c++ usenet
    group now: any "not-standard" questions about C++ has been succesfully
    trampled away (together with the persons who dares to say).

    "Together with persons" just because it is very interesting to me the
    question: where the people who are able befor to say something about C++
    outside of "standard"? May be the people were too old and all suddenly
    have died without striked nurses? Or they are not use C++ any more and
    have no interest with the C++?

    I am not going to ask them for anything, but it is not clear to me, why
    have they interrupted their own discussions? There are tons of known
    problems of C++, at least in some (maybe rare) applications, declared by
    standard C++ as supported property or resolved problem.

    So the question is how have we achieved the ugly lifestyle and who is
    culprit?

    What the goal of the group? Who are visitors of the group? What the goal
    of C++ (as i know Stroustrup or ISO promises nothing for anybody):
    commertial, non-commertial for professional programmers, for amateur
    programmers?

    Maybe the situation can be explained by "good ideas"?

    For example, to prevent new C++ users from exploring other alternatives? I
    do not know, maybe there are people who selects language by advertisment,
    but do we turn c.l.c++ into group of C++ advertisment?

    Or for example, the dividing users, when "there are experts, who makes for
    you all useful and there are coders, who must follow the useful things", of
    course, all of that in order the not very wise people live better :).

    In general, the economic and all other problems with living people divided
    in the manner, to wise and not very wise, of course, outside of C++ scope,
    but C++ is a language, that _requires_ exactly knowledge of internals of
    C++: linkage, parameters passed by, exception implementation.

    And it is the regular ability to control the internals by user that is
    main advantage of C++. When "derived value passed as base" becames
    "advanced knowledge" this is something wrong here.

    > Eric Smith, 18 may 1992
    >
    > Programming languages are heavy.
    > Learning C++ takes more effort
    > than hauling tons of bricks.


    As for me, i prefer to learn any new regular language instead of hauling
    bricks, any car hauls bricks much better than i do.

    Programming language is a way to express your will to computer. If you
    have no any desires, you can not express them with any language, so the
    desing desires take all the efforts rather than correct language.

    There are some people, who wants to learn desing and programming together,
    of course, they give nothing except problems.

    Desing is hard to learn and correct language can not be explained without
    design requirements, but they think that language is hard to learn.

    Ordinary time to learn basic syntax of nice pascal - two weaks. If you can
    express your procedures by native language, you will be able to express
    them by pascal after the time.

    "C" requires a little more time, because of some syntax. C++ requires a
    little more than C, but the problem is that you do not need C++ syntax at
    all without appropreate desing knowledge.

    The question: is C++ the kind of correct language, that its syntax and
    semantic can be explained by desing desires instead of tons of artificial
    (read unexplainable) rules of "standard"?

    Maksim A. Polyanin
    http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new


    --
    Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/comp.lang.c /
    More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html
     
    Grizlyk, Feb 19, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Grizlyk

    James Kanze Guest

    On Feb 19, 3:31 pm, "Grizlyk" <> wrote:
    > Just look at
    > that!http://groups.google.ru/group/comp.lang.c /browse_frm/thread/566c99f....


    > Kind Google found me the old (1992) discussion "Limits of OO
    > paradigm" and i have dug up the buried by sands of years
    > questions. And the discussion is quite correct just now! It is
    > very interesting and instructive ("knowledgeful" - inspiring
    > to get new useful knowledge or expirence).


    > Let's consider speeches of some orators.


    > > Jerry Schwarz, 22 may 1992


    > > Since Ian dislikes C++
    > > I've been wondering why he was bothering
    > > contributing to this group and now I see.


    > This is very interesting idea - if you _agrumented_ do not
    > agree with some "standard" opinions of "senior brothers" then
    > you automatically "dislike C++", and automatically "are in
    > wrong group".


    No, but the group is not an advocacy group. It's not for
    discussions of whether some other language (mythical or real) is
    better---it's for discussions about how to use C++ (or even how
    to improve it).

    > The unknown Jerry Schwarz


    I don't see how you can say "unknown". Jerry Schwarz is very
    well known. (Amongst other things, he's the original author of
    iostream.)

    [much drivel deleted...]
    > > Eric Smith, 18 may 1992


    > > Programming languages are heavy. Learning C++ takes more
    > > effort than hauling tons of bricks.


    > As for me, i prefer to learn any new regular language instead
    > of hauling bricks, any car hauls bricks much better than i do.


    If you prefer another language, then use it. If you have
    suggestions as to how to improve C++, then bring them forward.

    [...]
    > The question: is C++ the kind of correct language, that its
    > syntax and semantic can be explained by desing desires instead
    > of tons of artificial (read unexplainable) rules of
    > "standard"?


    All serious programming langauges have a standard. It's part of
    the contract between the compiler vendor and you. (It's true
    that a number of vendors today choose to ignore the parts that
    they don't like, like export.)

    --
    James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
    Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
    Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
     
    James Kanze, Feb 19, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Grizlyk

    Grizlyk Guest

    James Kanze wrote:

    For the first, you have successfully ignored emphases (goals) of my post
    and have considered things, that has no meaning (for C++ question)
    absolutely. For example, is Jerry Schwarz known or not.

    For the second, your interpretation of some clouses of my post is quite
    incorrect.

    >> This is very interesting idea
    >> - if you _agrumented_ do not agree with
    >> some "standard" opinions of "senior brothers" >> then you automatically

    "dislike C++",
    >> and automatically "are in wrong group".


    > No, but the group is not an advocacy group.


    What means "advocacy" in the context of my clause?

    > It's not for discussions of whether
    > some other language (mythical or real)
    > is better --- it's for discussions about
    > how to use C++ (or even how to improve it).


    It is evidently, if anybody "_agrumented_ do not agree with some standard
    C++ properties", he does exactly "discussions about how to use C++ (or
    even how to improve it)" and does not fall into "discussions about whether
    some mythical language is better".

    > If you have suggestions as to how
    > to improve C++, then bring them forward.


    "Maybe you want a key from the room where the money?" - one literary hero
    said. In our context this means that it is not easy to "bring the
    suggestions forward". The problem is the "suggestions" must be found, then
    must be done clear, then must be pushed into language.

    All required at least correct discussions about all possible
    "improvements" (read patches of found problems).

    The correct discussions require of course "community" - set of man who has
    interest to express his will to computer in smart way.

    But when somebody thinks that he is able for response throws stones,
    spits, emits curses and obviously false statements, requires to interrupt
    the kind of discussion as "not about C++" and so on, this is no good.

    The presence of the kind of men in the world, who is never going to answer
    for his behaviour is distressing, but can be at least ignored here.

    But absence of other kind of men in the C++ -related groups is no good, it
    looks like i am a last man who is going to use C++ for any programs.

    It is not clear to me what is the group (community), who is owner of the
    language and what is the purpose of the C++? (You, of course, have skipped
    the questions as "drivel".)

    Maksim A. Polyanin
    http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new


    --
    Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/comp.lang.c /
    More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html
     
    Grizlyk, Feb 21, 2008
    #3
  4. * Grizlyk:
    >
    > It is not clear to me what is the group (community),


    It's an unmoderated Usenet group.

    Unmoderated Usenet groups are defined by their participants.

    Some groups have charters, but clc++ doesn't have a charter (it's a very
    old group).


    > who is owner of the language


    The international C++ standardization committee.


    > and what is the purpose of the C++?


    It's a general purpose programming language. You can find more
    information about purpose and general design issues in Bjarne's books.


    Cheers, & hth.,

    - Alf

    --
    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
     
    Alf P. Steinbach, Feb 21, 2008
    #4
  5. Grizlyk

    Grizlyk Guest

    Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

    Ah, greetings Mr. Alf P. Steinbach, who likes to turn C++ discussions
    outside of C++ scope.

    >> who is owner of the language

    > The international C++ standardization committee.
    >
    >> and what is the purpose of the C++?

    > It's a general purpose programming language


    The questions about ownership and purpose of C++ are closely related (the
    same as) to the follow question:
    - are C++ users have any _real_ rights and abilities to reflect their
    ideas and requirements for development of C++, in the sense:
    - are developers of C++ simultaneously users of C++ or are community of
    _the_ C++ user is _really_ open (public, not private)?

    It seems to me that no.

    Maksim A. Polyanin
    http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new


    --
    Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/comp.lang.c /
    More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html
     
    Grizlyk, Feb 21, 2008
    #5
  6. * Grizlyk:
    > Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
    >
    > Ah, greetings Mr. Alf P. Steinbach, who likes to turn C++ discussions
    > outside of C++ scope.
    >
    >>> who is owner of the language

    >> The international C++ standardization committee.
    >>
    >>> and what is the purpose of the C++?

    >> It's a general purpose programming language

    >
    > The questions about ownership and purpose of C++ are closely related (the
    > same as) to the follow question:
    > - are C++ users have any _real_ rights and abilities to reflect their
    > ideas and requirements for development of C++, in the sense:
    > - are developers of C++ simultaneously users of C++ or are community of
    > _the_ C++ user is _really_ open (public, not private)?
    >
    > It seems to me that no.
    >
    > Maksim A. Polyanin
    > http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new


    Hm, I can't make heads or tails of that except that it contains a little
    attempt at trolling.

    The international standardization committee is in principle open for
    anyone, and the same goes for national committeees.

    But in practice you need sponsoring from some Big Firm to attend the
    meetings, so the only way to influence the process if you don't have
    that Big Firm backing is via Defect Reports and by participating in
    comp.std.c++ discussions (and that group is is currently down).


    Bye,

    - Alf

    --
    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
     
    Alf P. Steinbach, Feb 21, 2008
    #6
  7. Grizlyk

    Grizlyk Guest

    Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

    > in principle open
    > ...
    > But in practice you need sponsoring
    > from some Big Firm to attend the meetings


    The entrance is free, but for 1$. The practical abilities of C++ users for
    C++ development is only prove my suspicion that C++ looks like a kind of
    private club of unknown programmers, who makes something for itself and
    later distributes the results chiefly for free; or even enterprise of C++
    developers.

    And the wide spreading of C++ can be explained only by the fact that there
    are no other closely to hardware compiling OO languages.

    Maksim A. Polyanin
    http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new


    --
    Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/comp.lang.c /
    More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html
     
    Grizlyk, Feb 21, 2008
    #7
  8. Grizlyk

    James Kanze Guest

    On Feb 21, 10:31 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <> wrote:
    > * Grizlyk:
    > > Alf P. Steinbach wrote:


    [...]
    > > The questions about ownership and purpose of C++ are closely
    > > related (the same as) to the follow question:
    > > - are C++ users have any _real_ rights and abilities to
    > > reflect their ideas and requirements for development of C++,
    > > in the sense:
    > > - are developers of C++ simultaneously users of C++ or are
    > > community of _the_ C++ user is _really_ open (public, not
    > > private)?


    > > It seems to me that no.


    > Hm, I can't make heads or tails of that except that it
    > contains a little attempt at trolling.


    I don't think English is Grizlyk's native language. I know I
    often have problems understanding what he is trying to say. And
    while I don't understand it enough to be sure, my first
    impression is that his posting is just sour grapes. He probably
    made some suggestion about how to change C++, and is
    disappointed that people didn't lean over backwards to adapt it
    (despite the fact that it was expressed in barely understandable
    English, and probably ignored all of the work which has been
    done to date).

    > The international standardization committee is in principle
    > open for anyone, and the same goes for national committeees.


    > But in practice you need sponsoring from some Big Firm to attend the
    > meetings,


    Not really. While Microsoft, Sun, et al. are definitly
    represented, some of the more active members are from much
    smaller firms (EDG and Dinkumware both send the entire technical
    staff, and then some, to the meetings), and there are even a
    number of people who attend as individuals. (The few times I've
    attended, it's been as an individual.)

    Formally, you are supposed to be a member of a national body to
    attend, but in practice, the committee has never enforced this,
    and even if it did, it's easy to become a member of a national
    body.

    ISO (or maybe it was ANSI) also recently introduced a category
    "friends of the committee", which means that you can participate
    fully (but not vote) without being a member of anything.
    (Historically, this has been the case anyway. The C++ group has
    always been extremely open in allowing people to participate.)

    > so the only way to influence the process if you don't have
    > that Big Firm backing is via Defect Reports and by
    > participating in comp.std.c++ discussions (and that group is
    > is currently down).


    Or by becoming a member of a national body, or a friend of the
    committee. If you want to participate, there's no excuse for
    not participating. (Most of the work of the committee takes
    place by email, although for large, complex proposals, it is
    better if you can attend at least one meeting to discuss it.)

    --
    James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
    Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
    Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
     
    James Kanze, Feb 21, 2008
    #8
  9. * James Kanze:
    > On Feb 21, 10:31 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <> wrote:
    >> * Grizlyk:
    >>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

    >
    > [...]
    >>> The questions about ownership and purpose of C++ are closely
    >>> related (the same as) to the follow question:
    >>> - are C++ users have any _real_ rights and abilities to
    >>> reflect their ideas and requirements for development of C++,
    >>> in the sense:
    >>> - are developers of C++ simultaneously users of C++ or are
    >>> community of _the_ C++ user is _really_ open (public, not
    >>> private)?

    >
    >>> It seems to me that no.

    >
    >> Hm, I can't make heads or tails of that except that it
    >> contains a little attempt at trolling.

    >
    > I don't think English is Grizlyk's native language. I know I
    > often have problems understanding what he is trying to say. And
    > while I don't understand it enough to be sure, my first
    > impression is that his posting is just sour grapes. He probably
    > made some suggestion about how to change C++, and is
    > disappointed that people didn't lean over backwards to adapt it
    > (despite the fact that it was expressed in barely understandable
    > English, and probably ignored all of the work which has been
    > done to date).
    >
    >> The international standardization committee is in principle
    >> open for anyone, and the same goes for national committeees.

    >
    >> But in practice you need sponsoring from some Big Firm to attend the
    >> meetings,

    >
    > Not really. While Microsoft, Sun, et al. are definitly
    > represented, some of the more active members are from much
    > smaller firms (EDG and Dinkumware both send the entire technical
    > staff, and then some, to the meetings), and there are even a
    > number of people who attend as individuals. (The few times I've
    > attended, it's been as an individual.)


    Well, scratch "Big" from "Big Firm" (depends what one means by that) and
    add "and/or have a solid economy and/or live in area of meeting or...".


    > Formally, you are supposed to be a member of a national body to
    > attend, but in practice, the committee has never enforced this,
    > and even if it did, it's easy to become a member of a national
    > body.
    >
    > ISO (or maybe it was ANSI) also recently introduced a category
    > "friends of the committee",


    Do Facebook friends count? :)

    <laughing>


    > which means that you can participate
    > fully (but not vote) without being a member of anything.
    > (Historically, this has been the case anyway. The C++ group has
    > always been extremely open in allowing people to participate.)
    >
    >> so the only way to influence the process if you don't have
    >> that Big Firm backing is via Defect Reports and by
    >> participating in comp.std.c++ discussions (and that group is
    >> is currently down).

    >
    > Or by becoming a member of a national body,


    No such in e.g. Norway.


    > or a friend of the
    > committee. If you want to participate, there's no excuse for
    > not participating. (Most of the work of the committee takes
    > place by email, although for large, complex proposals, it is
    > better if you can attend at least one meeting to discuss it.)


    Well, I think I'm doing my share for the community as clc+m mod and just
    helping out here in clc++. Also, have participated in discussion of at
    least one proposal, and one DR, but to be honest I didn't involve myself
    but was just involved by others... I wasn't aware of that "friends of
    the committee", or forgotten it; thanks for the information, will think.

    Cheers,

    - Alf

    --
    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
     
    Alf P. Steinbach, Feb 21, 2008
    #9
  10. Grizlyk

    kwikius Guest

    On Feb 19, 9:16 pm, James Kanze <> wrote:
    > On Feb 19, 3:31 pm, "Grizlyk" <> wrote:


    <...>

    > If you prefer another language, then use it.  If you have
    > suggestions as to how to improve C++, then bring them forward.


    He has:

    http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new

    regards
    Andy Little
     
    kwikius, Feb 21, 2008
    #10
  11. Grizlyk

    Grizlyk Guest

    James Kanze wrote:

    >> Hm, I can't make heads or tails of that
    >> except that it contains a little attempt
    >> at trolling.

    >
    > I often have problems understanding what
    > he is trying to say. And while I don't
    > understand it enough to be sure, my first
    > impression is that his posting is just
    > sour grapes.


    Ha-ha-ha. Sorry, i can not hide my emotions here and tell you why.

    When i was younger, i heard kinder tales, and one of them was "Porridge
    from an axe". In the story, an old soldier one evening came into found by
    road house to beg a little food and to get a roof for the night. A
    housekeper was very greedy old women, and she decided to give him
    nothing.

    - Give me a little food, - he asked.
    - You can use a nail on the wall to hang up your clothes, - she answered.

    There is correct english translation of the story (the question and answer
    sounded nice similarly), but the idea of the dialog, that she pretended as
    deaf and little stupid due to her feelings.

    Some people ignores the Old Good Tales absolutely, but they are wrong. The
    stories can be useful.

    No, really, tell me, how a man, who practiacally uses the ideas of the
    housekeeper of the "Porridge from an axe" during C++ -related discussion
    going to be treated seriously? Only by child, who was not able to read the
    baby's books.

    Or course, i make many mistakes in english, but the questions can be
    undestanding or at least specified. The group is not a group of english
    grammar, is it?

    But the problem here is that some men quite understands, but just does not
    like the sense of question:

    >>> This is very interesting idea -
    >>> if you _agrumented_ do not agree
    >>> with some "standard" opinions of
    >>> "senior brothers" then you automatically
    >>> "dislike C++", and automatically
    >>> "are in wrong group".


    and the sense is a reason of the "deaf".

    > by becoming a member of a national body
    > or a friend of the committee


    I see a great Prospects here.

    Again, if C++ is industrial language and not a language has been done by
    programmers for programmers, of course, business must improve the language
    itself for self industrial reasons. We all can see success (and long life)
    of C++ and the paradigm.

    And of course, any activity with a language requires resources: humans,
    materials etc, but at any rate, it is a pity, that there are no public
    (not industial) OO languages, that can be used similar to C++.

    Maksim A. Polyanin
    http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new


    --
    Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/comp.lang.c /
    More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html
     
    Grizlyk, Feb 21, 2008
    #11
  12. Grizlyk

    Grizlyk Guest

    kwikius wrote:

    > He has:
    > http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new


    This is even less than draft page - i have just fastly transated some
    records of my notebook into english and the page also reflects results of
    dialog about "r-value references".

    There are too many records in my notebook (several tens) to be instantly
    public and after that all of them requires hard pre-discussion.

    I have done the test page to see what will be rather to reach any
    predefined result.

    Maksim A. Polyanin
    http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new


    --
    Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/comp.lang.c /
    More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html
     
    Grizlyk, Feb 21, 2008
    #12
  13. Grizlyk

    Grizlyk Guest

    Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

    > I wasn't aware of that "friends of
    > the committee", or forgotten it;


    It seems to me any language can be or "industial", or "public"; but not
    both together.

    Just because for "industial C++" you must reflect desires of "industial
    users of C++", to add appropriate changes to C++.

    If you are ordinary user, your opinion of course, will be considered with
    attention, but later will be rejected with high probability.

    Is your goal adding something to C++? I guess not, but your goal is make
    your own work with C++ better, so to be "friend of industial C++" is the
    same as to be "hen friend of a human".

    As a compromise here i see if C++ will have two "standards" - public and
    industial, maybe in the case, "industial" will be industial, but limited
    and "public" will be suitable for present day works.

    Maksim A. Polyanin
    http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new


    --
    Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/comp.lang.c /
    More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html
     
    Grizlyk, Feb 21, 2008
    #13
  14. Grizlyk

    Guest

    > Or course, i make many mistakes in english, but the questions can be
    > undestanding or at least specified.


    Why do I get the feeling that even if your English was perfect, I
    still would have no idea what the heck you are talking about? I know
    why... because you are OUT OF YOUR FREAKING MIND.

    - AJ, long time lurker, first time troll, returning to the shadows.


    On Feb 21, at various times, "Grizlyk" <> wrote:

    >The entrance is free, but for 1$. The practical abilities of C++ users for
    >C++ development is only prove my suspicion that C++ looks like a kind of
    >private club of unknown programmers, who makes something for itself and
    >later distributes the results chiefly for free; or even enterprise of C++
    >developers.
    >
    >And the wide spreading of C++ can be explained only by the fact that there
    >are no other closely to hardware compiling OO languages.


    ....

    >There are too many records in my notebook (several tens) to be instantly
    >public and after that all of them requires hard pre-discussion.


    ....

    >Some people ignores the Old Good Tales absolutely, but they are wrong. The
    >stories can be useful.
    >
    >No, really, tell me, how a man, who practiacally uses the ideas of the
    >housekeeper of the "Porridge from an axe" during C++ -related discussion
    >going to be treated seriously? Only by child, who was not able to read the
    >baby's books.


    ....

    And so many more...
     
    , Feb 21, 2008
    #14
  15. Grizlyk

    LR Guest

    Grizlyk wrote:

    > When i was younger, i heard kinder tales, and one of them was "Porridge
    > from an axe".


    I remember this fairy tale with its gentle lesson from when I was a
    child too. It has different names in different places.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_soup

    > The stories can be useful.


    Yes they can.

    > No, really, tell me, how a man, who practiacally uses the ideas
    > of [...] "Porridge from an axe" [is] going to be treated seriously?


    See the link above.

    > Again, if C++ is industrial language and not a language has been done by
    > programmers for programmers, of course, business must improve the language
    > itself for self industrial reasons. We all can see success (and long life)
    > of C++ and the paradigm.
    >
    > And of course, any activity with a language requires resources: humans,
    > materials etc, but at any rate, it is a pity, that there are no public
    > (not industial) OO languages, that can be used similar to C++.


    It's not clear to me what distinction you are trying to make here. What
    features would a language done by "programmers for programmers" have
    that an "industrial" language would or would not have?

    Assuming we accept your assertion that no OO languages done by
    programmers for programmers exist, why is that a pity?

    Do you think the differences would be technical or cultural or both?

    More to the point, what do you want?

    LR
     
    LR, Feb 21, 2008
    #15
  16. Grizlyk

    LR Guest

    Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

    > Well, I think I'm doing my share for the community as clc+m mod and just
    > helping out here in clc++. Also, have participated in discussion of at
    > least one proposal, and one DR



    I know that it's hard to express gratitude in this medium without
    sounding unintentionally sarcastic or worse, but I'll take the risk.

    I think that you, and others, who make these efforts aren't thanked
    often enough.

    So, Thank You.

    LR
     
    LR, Feb 21, 2008
    #16
  17. Grizlyk

    Grizlyk Guest

    LR wrote:

    > What features would a language done
    > by "programmers for programmers" have
    > that an "industrial" language would
    > or would not have?
    >
    > Do you think the differences would be
    > technical or cultural or both?


    I am not sure, what means "cultural" applied to "language", but they have
    conceptually different goals, requirements and a ways and terms of
    improvements.

    I have answered a little above (here
    http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/comp.lang.c /messages/989478.html
    )

    A "public" thing is intended to resolve detected problems of a domain, but
    the "industrial" thing is intended to support "industry" of the domain,
    unrelated to existing problems of the domain.

    > Assuming we accept your assertion that
    > no OO languages done by programmers for
    > programmers exist, why is that a pity?


    The answer looks like evident, we lose without all things, that can be
    potencially done with more perfect language.

    > More to the point, what do you want?


    The idea came up to my mind, that can be two standarts - industial and
    public (if there is community, who needs public one).

    How do you think, do i look like "coin box" a of advices? I do not know,
    maybe you will say something useful?

    Maksim A. Polyanin
    http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new


    --
    Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/comp.lang.c /
    More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html
     
    Grizlyk, Feb 21, 2008
    #17
  18. Grizlyk

    LR Guest

    Grizlyk wrote:
    > LR wrote:


    > A "public" thing is intended to resolve detected problems of a domain, but
    > the "industrial" thing is intended to support "industry" of the domain,
    > unrelated to existing problems of the domain.


    Could you expand and clarify that a bit?

    >
    >> Assuming we accept your assertion that
    >> no OO languages done by programmers for
    >> programmers exist, why is that a pity?

    >
    > The answer looks like evident, we lose without all things, that can be
    > potencially done with more perfect language.


    I hope you'll agree that not all suggestions make for a better language.


    >
    >> More to the point, what do you want?

    >
    > The idea came up to my mind, that can be two standarts - industial and
    > public (if there is community, who needs public one).


    I'm still not sure what benefit you think would arise from this.


    > How do you think, do i look like "coin box" a of advices?


    You're making the suggestion, so I was hoping you'd have some ideas.

    > I do not know, maybe you will say something useful?


    I'm still trying to understand what you want and why you want it.

    LR
     
    LR, Feb 21, 2008
    #18
  19. Grizlyk

    Grizlyk Guest

    LR wrote:

    > What features would a language done
    > by "programmers for programmers" have
    > that an "industrial" language would
    > or would not have?
    >
    > Do you think the differences would be
    > technical or cultural or both?


    I am not sure, what means "cultural" applied to "language", but they have
    conceptually different goals, requirements and a ways and terms of
    improvements.

    I have answered a little above (here
    http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/comp.lang.c /messages/989478.html
    )

    A "public" thing is intended to resolve detected problems of a domain, but
    the "industrial" thing is intended to support "industry" of the domain,
    unrelated to existing problems of the domain.

    > Assuming we accept your assertion that
    > no OO languages done by programmers for
    > programmers exist, why is that a pity?


    The answer looks like evident, we lose without all things, that can be
    potencially done with more perfect language.

    > More to the point, what do you want?


    The idea came up to my mind, that can be two standarts - industial and
    public (if there is community, who needs public one).

    How do you think, do i look like "coin box" a of advices? I do not know,
    maybe you will say something useful?

    Maksim A. Polyanin
    http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new


    --
    Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/comp.lang.c /
    More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html
     
    Grizlyk, Feb 21, 2008
    #19
  20. Grizlyk

    Grizlyk Guest

    LR wrote:

    >> A "public" thing is intended to resolve
    >> detected problems of a domain, but
    >> the "industrial" thing is intended to
    >> support "industry" of the domain,
    >> unrelated to existing problems of the
    >> domain.

    >
    > Could you expand and clarify that a bit?


    There are tons of examples, i will not list here all of them, only one:

    - for "public" language does not matter what employer will think about his
    workers.

    >>> Assuming we accept your assertion that
    >>> no OO languages done by programmers for
    >>> programmers exist, why is that a pity?

    >>
    >> The answer looks like evident, we lose
    >> without all things, that can be potencially
    >> done with more perfect language.

    >
    > I hope you'll agree that not all suggestions
    > make for a better language.


    My answer and its context means, that many of _correct_ improvements were
    rejected only due to incompatibility with "industrial" C++ terms and
    conditions instead of incompatibility with true ("public") C++ terms and
    conditions.

    >> The idea came up to my mind, that can be
    >> two standarts - industial and public
    >> (if there is community, who needs public one).

    >
    > I'm still not sure what benefit
    > you think would arise from this.


    Benefit will be, and we will get in fact two languages, closely related,
    but developed under different conditions.

    But the first needed - community - who are stumbled (or even stopped) by
    current C++ limitations and will be interested with programming under
    improved, but non-industrial C++ development conditions.

    >> How do you think, do i look like
    >> a "coin box" of advices?

    >
    > You're making the suggestion, so I was
    > hoping you'd have some ideas.


    I already have said some ideas, but can not enumerate all of them, all
    that can be used or required.

    For the first, it is interesting for me, are there any other C++ users,
    who needs improvements, they are required :)

    >> I do not know, maybe you will say
    >> something useful?

    >
    > I'm still trying to understand what
    > you want and why you want it.


    It is pity, try read original posts, but briefly, i (hope not only i) need
    a better C++, improved in accordance with detected problems and existed
    jobs and existed desing ways.

    That is why i need _effective_ and _real_ way to enumerate, to discuss, to
    push into language all things that users want, in spite of "industrial"
    requirements.

    Maksim A. Polyanin
    http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new


    --
    Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/comp.lang.c /
    More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html
     
    Grizlyk, Feb 21, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rod
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    514
    Jason DeFontes
    May 12, 2004
  2. Kallen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    339
    Kallen
    Feb 21, 2006
  3. Florian Weimer

    Multi-paradigm design with C++

    Florian Weimer, Aug 4, 2003, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    426
    Victor Bazarov
    Nov 23, 2003
  4. Jared Thirsk
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    482
    Shashank
    May 12, 2004
  5. Sune
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    647
    __PPS__
    Jul 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page