C++'s Intricate Object Model

[Tony]

From the lowest level, things are complex in C++. Does anyone in their right
mind think that the following is what aspiring programmers need to endure
(?):

A. Standard layout type.
B. Trivial class.
C. POD.

One needs to use Doxygen along with The Encyclopedia of C++ (aka, the ISO
standard) just to decipher and maintain knowledge of the
inter-dependencies/hierarchies of those fundamental C++isms!

 

[Bo Persson]

From the lowest level, things are complex in C++. Does anyone in
their right mind think that the following is what aspiring
programmers need to endure (?):

A. Standard layout type.
B. Trivial class.
C. POD.

Aspiring programmers don't need to bother with that, they can start
with the simple and useful features like classes and templates.


Bo Persson

 

[Juha Nieminen]

One needs to use Doxygen along with The Encyclopedia of C++ (aka, the ISO
standard) just to decipher and maintain knowledge of the
inter-dependencies/hierarchies of those fundamental C++isms!

Strange. I have programmed C++ as a hobby and professionally for well
over 10 years, yet I have never needed those.

Keep trolling. Maybe you'll convert someone.

 

[Tony]

Strange. I have programmed C++ as a hobby and professionally for well
over 10 years, yet I have never needed those.

The definitions of POD, trivial class and standard-layout class are revamped
or added in C++0x.

Keep trolling. Maybe you'll convert someone.

I suggest you keep your defamatory statements to yourself. Consider this as
notice to cease and desist.

 

[Brian Wood]

The definitions of POD, trivial class and standard-layout class are revamped
or added in C++0x.

I suppose you have a point, but please tell me what language
you think is going to replace C++. Perhaps C++ will be
reformed in the months ahead and continue as the leading
programming language of the day.


Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
www.webEbenezer.net

 

[Juha Nieminen]

I suggest you keep your defamatory statements to yourself. Consider this as
notice to cease and desist.

Wow! That sounds official! And what will you do if you don't "cease
and desist"? Report me to the authorities? Hack my computer? Call me names?

 

[Keith H Duggar]

That would be off-topic to this thread. On-topic would be discussion about
why the mentioned inter-dependent things are specified as they are and
whether there is some ideal concept that could replace that intricacy in a
future evolution of the C++ standard or in a clean-slate new language. I am
wondering if this is yet another example, of over-generality,
backward-compatibility and/or poor language design choice resulting in
annoying complexity.

Clearly the C++ object model should be replaced by the "cons cell"
yielding immense power, safety, mojo, everything! To the point of
a new ultimate omfg pwning language we should called Crisp.

Seriously, have you read and comprehended Lippman's excellent book
"Inside The C++ Object Model"? Maybe then we could start on common
ground.

KHD

 

[Tony]

Clearly the C++ object model should be replaced by the "cons cell"
yielding immense power, safety, mojo, everything! To the point of
a new ultimate omfg pwning language we should called Crisp.

Sarcasm noted. (Uh oh, I offended the golden calf police again!).

Seriously, have you read and comprehended Lippman's excellent book
"Inside The C++ Object Model"? Maybe then we could start on common
ground.

I have read that book once, yes. Comprehended it? "Sure", but: I'm not that
concerned with "legacy language" <wink to BS> implementations as I am with
the ideal implementation so I'm looking for "Beyond the C++ Object Model"
(I'm looking for answers between the lines, outside of "Sherwood Forrest").
Oh but wait, _I'm_ supposed to write that one? I build things. I don't
really like writing about the stuff I build/create, nor do I wish to be
academic or scientific and general rather than practical and focused
(individually, not "corporately"). I don't have time to go backwards any
further (though surely there are more fruits on the ancient trees to be
harvested for those who wanna wear an Indianna Jones hat).

I KNOW some of the things I think are incorrect about the C++ object model
and they are biggies, "to me" anyway. You're right about reviewing
historical references though: they are food for thought. Obviously (?) I
don't consider some of the C++ object model design choices as "correct"
(there is no "right" answer) or acceptable. I find that easy to say but I
say it 20 years after C++ took hold so it's not like I know everything that
everyone else doesn't. I think many other people are hard at work also
building the better mouse++ trap and I may indeed abandon my own language
development for another if one shows up that "gets it right". Thought
endeavors are never meaningless.

On the flipside: It's my thread, I only participate in what I KNOW is on
topic for MY thread. If you can't answer the questions I posed, or add
substance, don't expect me to entertain your tangential ideas: create a new
thread to discuss what YOU want to discuss and you might entice me into
posting something there.