C++ stuff I can't talk about here

T

Tony

Well there's the object model: "C++ers" (circa 2009, not language invention
time (I'm letting the mentioned latterS off the hook)) don't get it. They
blindly accept the C++ object model (read, thery're "virtually blindsided"),
as it lacks practical substance. Theory is nice, and everyone has one (did I
say that?), but the C++ object model theory is a pile.

I'm gonna stop with that cuz it's such a BIGGIE. I could have made the
subject: "The C++ object model sucks!".

All comments welcomed.
 
K

kwikius

Well there's the object model: "C++ers" (circa 2009, not language invention
time (I'm letting the mentioned latterS off the hook)) don't get it. They
blindly accept the C++ object model (read, thery're "virtually blindsided"),
as it lacks practical substance. Theory is nice, and everyone has one (did I
say that?), but the C++ object model theory is a pile.

I'm gonna stop with that cuz it's such a BIGGIE. I could have made the
subject: "The C++ object model sucks!".

All comments welcomed.


Sounds Way Cooooool! Tony...


but I think it needs a little more Detail filling in...


so we can figure ....


WTF YOURE ON ABOUT MAN !!!! ?


regards
Andy Little
 
S

SG

Well there's the object model: "C++ers" (circa 2009, not language invention
time (I'm letting the mentioned latterS off the hook)) don't get it. They
blindly accept the C++ object model (read, thery're "virtually blindsided"),
as it lacks practical substance. Theory is nice, and everyone has one (did I
say that?), but the C++ object model theory is a pile.

I'm gonna stop with that cuz it's such a BIGGIE. I could have made the
subject: "The C++ object model sucks!".

All comments welcomed.

From what I know you're only considering different "object models" for
your own programming language design. You should add a little more
content that qualifies as a good basis for a discussion and move the
thread to comp.lang.misc or something. In this group with these kinds
of posts of yours, frankly, you just look like a troll to me.

Cheers!
SG
 
C

Christof Donat

Hi,
Well there's the object model: "C++ers" (circa 2009, not language
invention time (I'm letting the mentioned latterS off the hook)) don't
get it.

Ah. I guess that is why you don't want to be more explicit here. The C++
people might become depressed and jump out of the window as soon as they
get blinded looking at the sun of your bright light.
They blindly accept the C++ object model (read, thery're
"virtually blindsided"), as it lacks practical substance.

I guess that the lack of practical substance is the reason why so many
applications still are written in C++.
Theory is
nice, and everyone has one (did I say that?), but the C++ object model
theory is a pile.

Thanks for telling us so many details. Now go back under your stone
where you trolls belong to.

Christof
 
T

Tony

SG said:
From what I know you're only considering different "object models" for
your own programming language design. You should add a little more
content that qualifies as a good basis for a discussion and move the
thread to comp.lang.misc or something.

Well you're partly correct: while the discussion is one of language design
and the fact that C++ is already set in stone, make any such "betterment"
discussion more appropriate in a language design group. OTOH, what C++ is,
is C++ and is apparently on-topic. This NG is named c.l.c++.usage. At least
_I_ see it as a catchall for all things C++ (motivation for subgroups, but
kinda late for the ailing C++, and perhaps then just a good idea for any
modern language group).

That said, I think my primary motivation for pursuing a new language (over
C++) is the object model. I think that in the language's maturity.. blah,
blah...

That "said", I totally agree that C++ is "multi-PARADIGMICAL" (note the
emphasis).

Paradigm: to "know" or "believe" something so much that it blinds one to
other possibilities including the correct solution to the problem at hand
and/or to the INcorrectness of the current (even highly regarded) practice
(historic ref: bloodletting).
 
T

Tony

Tony said:
Well you're partly correct: while the discussion is one of language
design and the fact that C++ is already set in stone, make any such
"betterment" discussion more appropriate in a language design group.
OTOH, what C++ is, is C++ and is apparently on-topic.
This NG is
named c.l.c++.usage.

An obvious wireless keyboard hiccup: should have included the word 'not'.
(That's one reason why wireless sucks: it doesn't work!). My wireless
keyboard makes me seem stupid sometimes.

Tony
 
C

coal

Well you're partly correct: while the discussion is one of language design
and the fact that C++ is already set in stone, make any such "betterment"
discussion more appropriate in a language design group. OTOH, what C++ is,
is C++ and is apparently on-topic. This NG is named c.l.c++.usage. At least
_I_ see it as a catchall for all things C++ (motivation for subgroups, but
kinda late for the ailing C++, and perhaps then just a good idea for any
modern language group).

That said, I think my primary motivation for pursuing a new language (over
C++) is the object model. I think that in the language's maturity.. blah,
blah...

That "said", I totally agree that C++ is "multi-PARADIGMICAL" (note the
emphasis).

Paradigm: to "know" or "believe" something so much that it blinds one to
other possibilities including the correct solution to the problem at hand
and/or to the INcorrectness of the current (even highly regarded) practice
(historic ref: bloodletting).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


As others have said, there's not a lot here to discuss. You make
a few generalizations, but that's about it. A lot of people here
agree C++ is flawed. I expect to see a language developed that
corrects the known problems -- not sure how soon. Anyway, I've
complained here before about your not offering details.


Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
www.webEbenezer.net
 
P

Phlip

This NG is
An obvious wireless keyboard hiccup: should have included the word 'not'.
(That's one reason why wireless sucks: it doesn't work!). My wireless
keyboard makes me seem stupid sometimes.

Tony

Wireless keyboards prevent proofreading? (-:
 
T

Tony

Christof Donat said:
Hi,


Get a new Keyboard - though I wouldn't expect that to improve things a
lot.

Christof

I wrote that just to see who would bite. You lose sucker!
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,906
Latest member
SkinfixSkintag

Latest Threads

Top