The End of C++

Discussion in 'C++' started by Agent Mulder, Aug 27, 2003.

  1. Agent Mulder

    Agent Mulder Guest

    Hi group,
    I had a horrible vision of C++ falling
    to pieces because of a very structural
    but clear dichotomy close at its heart:

    Ellis,Stroustrup;"The Annotated C++
    Reference Manual", 1995, section 11.2:

    "Defining a default access specifier (for
    members) was probably a mistake."

    The notion of a "class" is void because
    the same can be done with "struct" with
    explicit access specifiers. My 14th sense
    tells me this is wrong and disbalances the
    language. Do C++ programmers wear
    asymmetrical moustaches?

    :-!)

    -X
    Agent Mulder, Aug 27, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Agent Mulder

    klaas Guest

    Agent Mulder wrote:
    > Hi group,
    > I had a horrible vision of C++ falling
    > to pieces because of a very structural


    > :-!)

    Go away, you suck and probably smell bad...

    klaas
    klaas, Aug 27, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Agent Mulder

    jeffc Guest

    "Agent Mulder" <> wrote in message
    news:biipek$kfi$1.nb.home.nl...
    > Hi group,
    > I had a horrible vision of C++ falling
    > to pieces because of a very structural
    > but clear dichotomy close at its heart:
    >
    > Ellis,Stroustrup;"The Annotated C++
    > Reference Manual", 1995, section 11.2:
    >
    > "Defining a default access specifier (for
    > members) was probably a mistake."
    >
    > The notion of a "class" is void because
    > the same can be done with "struct" with
    > explicit access specifiers.


    They kept both for usability purposes, not technical C++ language reasons.
    jeffc, Aug 27, 2003
    #3
  4. Agent Mulder

    Agent Mulder Guest

    > Ellis,Stroustrup;"The Annotated C++
    > Reference Manual", 1995, section 11.2:
    >
    > "Defining a default access specifier (for
    > members) was probably a mistake."


    I don't see how you get from here to "C++ falling to pieces", unless of
    course you're just trolling, but you wouldn't do that, now, would you?

    If it takes a troll to make you think
    I'll be a troll, yes. Look at the wording,

    "probably a mistake"

    Doesn't that tell you enough? Big mistake!
    It's like two brothers were one is allowed
    everything and the other is allowed nothing.
    Asymmetric. I don't know what it means but
    I use my intuition and my imagination and I
    see the whole tower of C++ lean over very
    slightly, very very slightly...

    :-")

    -X
    Agent Mulder, Aug 27, 2003
    #4
  5. > Agent Mulder wrote:
    > > Hi group,
    > > I had a horrible vision of C++ falling
    > > to pieces because of a very structural
    > > :-!)

    > Go away, you suck and probably smell bad...


    That wasn't exactly constructive, but:
    bwaaaahahahahaha.
    Jeremy Cowles, Aug 27, 2003
    #5
  6. "Agent Mulder" <> wrote in message
    news:biipek$kfi$1.nb.home.nl...
    > Hi group,
    > I had a horrible vision of C++ falling
    > to pieces



    Nonsense.



    >because of a very structural
    > but clear dichotomy close at its heart:



    >
    > Ellis,Stroustrup;"The Annotated C++
    > Reference Manual", 1995, section 11.2:
    >
    > "Defining a default access specifier (for
    > members) was probably a mistake."




    Minor details. If you do not want to leave the default, you can define
    everything explicitly.




    > The notion of a "class" is void because
    > the same can be done with "struct" with
    > explicit access specifiers.



    struct has also a default access specifier, public.


    > My 14th sense
    > tells me this is wrong and disbalances the
    > language. Do C++ programmers wear
    > asymmetrical moustaches?




    My sense is that it would be more beneficial for you to read a good, up to
    date, standard C++ introductory book. Check http://www.accu.org at the Book
    Reviews section. I have heared good things about "Accelerated C++" by Andrew
    Koenig, Barbara Moo:
    http://www.research.att.com/~ark/bibliography/accelerated.html







    --
    Ioannis

    * Programming pages: http://www.noicys.freeurl.com
    * Alternative URL 1: http://run.to/noicys
    * Alternative URL 2: http://www.noicys.cjb.net
    Ioannis Vranos, Aug 27, 2003
    #6
  7. Agent Mulder

    jeffc Guest

    "Agent Mulder" <> wrote in message
    news:biitnk$2ve$1.nb.home.nl...
    > > Ellis,Stroustrup;"The Annotated C++
    > > Reference Manual", 1995, section 11.2:
    > >
    > > "Defining a default access specifier (for
    > > members) was probably a mistake."

    >
    > I don't see how you get from here to "C++ falling to pieces", unless of
    > course you're just trolling, but you wouldn't do that, now, would you?
    >
    > If it takes a troll to make you think
    > I'll be a troll, yes. Look at the wording,
    >
    > "probably a mistake"
    >
    > Doesn't that tell you enough? Big mistake!


    If not a troll, then delusional.
    jeffc, Aug 27, 2003
    #7
  8. Agent Mulder

    Acacia Guest

    Now, now. We are all mature people (?)

    "Jeremy Cowles" <jeremy.cowles[nosp@m]asifl.com> wrote in message
    news:7673b.2886$...
    > > Agent Mulder wrote:
    > > > Hi group,
    > > > I had a horrible vision of C++ falling
    > > > to pieces because of a very structural
    > > > :-!)

    > > Go away, you suck and probably smell bad...

    >
    > That wasn't exactly constructive, but:
    > bwaaaahahahahaha.
    >
    >
    Acacia, Aug 27, 2003
    #8
  9. Agent Mulder wrote:

    >
    > :-!)
    >


    I REALLY need some of what you're smokin.

    Where didya get it. 'Promise I won't tell.
    Gianni Mariani, Aug 27, 2003
    #9
  10. Agent Mulder

    Oliver S. Guest

    > "Defining a default access specifier (for
    > members) was probably a mistake."
    >
    > The notion of a "class" is void because ....


    Do you think that your thoughts would be of any interest
    for a real-world programmer that doesn't consider program-
    ming a religious issue ?
    Oliver S., Aug 27, 2003
    #10
  11. Agent Mulder

    Stephen Howe Guest

    > The notion of a "class" is void because
    > the same can be done with "struct" with
    > explicit access specifiers. My 14th sense
    > tells me this is wrong and disbalances the
    > language. Do C++ programmers wear
    > asymmetrical moustaches?


    How could this possibly lead to "The End of C++?????".

    Please check yourself into the nearest asylum and don't bother this
    newsgroup until you come out with some sense of perspective.

    Stephen Howe
    Stephen Howe, Aug 28, 2003
    #11
  12. Agent Mulder

    Agent Mulder Guest

    <Agent Mulder>
    The notion of a "class" is void because
    the same can be done with "struct" with
    explicit access specifiers. My 14th sense
    tells me this is wrong and disbalances the
    language.
    </Agent Mulder>

    SH> How could this possibly lead to "The End of C++?????".

    Because it is a design failure. The end of C++
    is inevitable, anyhow, also without this. But it
    already earned its fair place in the history of
    computing. And up until the last "standard" is
    written, people can and will work hard for it.

    An indication of the feeble ground C++ is
    build upon is the attitude of its users. See
    how people flame on issues like D, C# or
    Java. That's not the attitude of a winner. I
    don't expect everyone to read the annotated
    C++ reference or C99 (!) , but the notion is
    common that C++ is rather evolutionary than
    revolutionary and evolution doesn't stop. So
    what you hold for THE language is just a
    passing phase.

    -X
    will find it's fair pla
    Agent Mulder, Aug 28, 2003
    #12
  13. "Agent Mulder" <> wrote in message news:<biitnk$2ve$1.nb.home.nl>...
    > > "Defining a default access specifier (for
    > > members) was probably a mistake."

    >
    > Doesn't that tell you enough? Big mistake!
    > It's like two brothers were one is allowed
    > everything and the other is allowed nothing.
    > Asymmetric. I don't know what it means but
    > I use my intuition and my imagination and I
    > see the whole tower of C++ lean over very
    > slightly, very very slightly...
    >


    It depends on how seriously one takes access specifiers.

    If you're an access-control-freak, class and struct have
    a symmetry. If you believe that acess control is a waste
    of time (since, little impact it has on the resulting code),
    you can say that "C++ is falling apart".

    Anyway. Class was made initially to say "this is not a simple
    good old structure. It has member functions". I use class
    for objects with code and struct for plain structures.

    Why did they make class private by default?
    That indeed seems more like a reason to justify the existance
    of the new keyword.

    These are the opinions of my boss, of course.

    stelios
    stelios xanthakis, Aug 28, 2003
    #13
  14. Agent Mulder

    Stephen Howe Guest

    > SH> How could this possibly lead to "The End of C++?????".
    >
    > Because it is a design failure.


    Not really. C++ comes with some baggage becasue it was built on C. It also
    has some baggage due to the historical process. An example: "this" should be
    a reference rather than a pointer. But references were invented after
    "this".

    But these are minor points. None of them indicate "C++" is a design failure.

    > An indication of the feeble ground C++ is
    > build upon is the attitude of its users. See
    > how people flame on issues like D, C# or
    > Java. That's not the attitude of a winner.


    What, you expect that argument to convince me?
    More telling, is your judgement on "people".

    For example, C#, Java and D (optionally) support Garbage Collection.
    People have pointed out that GC is not a universal panacea for all problems.
    If you see that as "flames", then that say something about you, the
    inability to realise that something important was said.

    That is not to say GC is useless, it is not suitable for everything.

    Then again, I have doubts whether Java could be used for writing device
    drivers. Ditto for C#. But you could with C++ and D.

    > don't expect everyone to read the annotated
    > C++ reference or C99 (!) , but the notion is
    > common that C++ is rather evolutionary than
    > revolutionary and evolution doesn't stop. So
    > what you hold for THE language is just a
    > passing phase.


    True. I expect the next version of C++ to gain better support for
    compile-time evaluation. That fits in neatly with its concept of "determine
    errors if possible at compile-time rather than run-time". Some of "Modern
    C++" by Alexander Alexandrescu would benefit from this. But C++ is a success
    and no way a failure. Nor will it end.

    Stephen Howe
    Stephen Howe, Sep 9, 2003
    #14
    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. Neo Geshel
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,596
    Versteijn
    Aug 18, 2004
  2. William
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,728
    Kevin Spencer
    Jun 1, 2005
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    353
  4. Jimmy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    327
    J. J. Farrell
    Sep 9, 2011
  5. Jimmy
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    649
    Peter Nilsson
    Sep 21, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page