C++ Archeology: Limits of OO paradigm

[Grizlyk]

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

 

[James Kanze]

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.

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...]

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.)

 

[Grizlyk]

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.

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

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* 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

 

[Grizlyk]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

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

The international C++ standardization committee.

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

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Grizlyk:

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

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


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

 

[Grizlyk]

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

 

[James Kanze]

* Grizlyk:

[...]

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.)

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* James Kanze:

* 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?

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.)


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

 

[kwikius]

On Feb 19, 3:31 pm, "Grizlyk" <[email protected]> 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

 

[Grizlyk]

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:

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

 

[Grizlyk]

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

 

[Grizlyk]

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

 

[adramolek]

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.

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...

 

[LR]

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]

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

 

[Grizlyk]

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

 

[LR]

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?

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.

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

 

[Grizlyk]

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

 

[Grizlyk]

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.

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.

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.

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'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