I wanted the subject line to be concise. I know "wtf" C++
is: it's a nightmare morphodite klooge that looks like it
was invented by MICRO$~1 rejects.

Why the f$ck do they even have 'C' in the name?

Here's how I got here: I'm very interested in studying and
eventually using this OpenCascade stuff to write some drawing
stuff. It's basically a tool set, and you have to already have
a programming environment going, that you can call the stuff
up into, so to speak. So, I've gotta learn Java or C++. Ick.

So, in my roamings, I've stumbled across Qt, which writes C++
for you, and the GUI is a dream. I'm already in love with it,
after playing with it for two days. I've followed the cookbook
getting-started-with-Qt-Designer and done their first 1 1/2
examples :-) So, I thought it'd be a good idea to learn some
C++, because you _do_ have to write code if you want your
program to do anything. ;-)

So, I find a C++ tutorial, and skip over chap. 1,2,& 3 - which
are just a review of C - and in the part about classes, they
mention overloading. I never have understood that, so I go back to
"functions" to look it up. On the way, I discover that, instead
of just passing pointers to functions, they've made up a whole
new concept, borrowed from Pascal or Ada or something, of passing
"by reference." And they've turned everything around! The address
of x isn't &x, it's x&. And you don't dereference it with *y,
noooOOOOOoooo- it's y*.

Buncha damn nincompoops, and now we're stuck with it.

</rant>

Cheers!
Rich

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 21:48:17 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

> [A C++ rant]

You have my sympathies. In fact, I think that Mr. Stroustrup, the
inventor of C++, should be given a place of honor in the Computing Hall of
Shame, for coming up with that monstrosity of a language.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jack D. Ripper wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 21:48:17 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
>
>> [A C++ rant]
>
> You have my sympathies. In fact, I think that Mr. Stroustrup, the
> inventor of C++, should be given a place of honor in the Computing Hall of
> Shame, for coming up with that monstrosity of a language.

Hey, it isn't that bad

I don't know why so many people complain about C++. I think the worst that
can be said about it is, like C, it still makes it easy to write messy
code.

At least it's not perl >

Blumf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBEWS8Mid3IcxolsoRAvmSAJ9cIaa837SAn8lhCztFnY OZIDRO+gCeMZAT
+vQMHX6jKuFIiXgYzECAHIQ=
=tgay
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In <BQcQc.17462$QA5.16673@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, Rich Grise wrote:

> I wanted the subject line to be concise. I know "wtf" C++
> is: it's a nightmare morphodite klooge that looks like it
> was invented by MICRO$~1 rejects....
> </rant>
>
> Cheers!
> Rich

You missed one important point: C++ is not supposed to be easy, it is
supposed to be powerful. Which means, you have to learn it, understand it
and practise it and _then_ talk about it. (Just like slack :-) )

C++ has its drawbacks like so many programming languages, but its success
did not come by chance.

Good luck
Franz



--
Franz M. Sauerzopf
Atominstitut, TU Wien

Blumf wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jack D. Ripper wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 21:48:17 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
>>
>>> [A C++ rant]
>>
>> You have my sympathies. In fact, I think that Mr. Stroustrup, the
>> inventor of C++, should be given a place of honor in the Computing Hall
>> of Shame, for coming up with that monstrosity of a language.
>
> Hey, it isn't that bad
>
> I don't know why so many people complain about C++. I think the worst that
> can be said about it is, like C, it still makes it easy to write messy
> code.
>
> At least it's not perl >

I wonder what the reaction in the perl NGs'd be if I posted that
rant there? Probably along the lines of "Right On, Brother!" It's fun
to watch the perl BOZOs jump on people that write in with questions
and post snippets of code which is basically C translated token-by-
token to pidgin perl.

But crap! Somebody could have said, "Hey, let's give C objects.
They're like a structure, but they have variables that we can
call properties, and functions that we can call methods. Then
we can get into this 'OOPS' stuff." (I wonder if there's anything
Freudian about that acronym?)

But why change the syntax, yet still call it "C"? Personally, I
think it rates a D-. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Franz M. Sauerzopf wrote:
> C++ has its drawbacks like so many programming languages, but its success
> did not come by chance.

yeah, like MS's success did not come by chance...

the sheer fact that something is popular doesn't mean it's good. in fact,
if there's any correlation between popularity and quality, it's usually
the other way around...

--
Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)

Rich Grise wrote:

> I wanted the subject line to be concise. I know "wtf" C++
> is: it's a nightmare morphodite klooge that looks like it
> was invented by MICRO$~1 rejects.

No, m$ managed to screw it when they started with Visual C++, basically
following non of the standards and extending the language to their needs.

> Why the f$ck do they even have 'C' in the name?

Cause it is based upon C?

> Here's how I got here: I'm very interested in studying and
> eventually using this OpenCascade stuff to write some drawing
> stuff. It's basically a tool set, and you have to already have
> a programming environment going, that you can call the stuff
> up into, so to speak. So, I've gotta learn Java or C++. Ick.

Then learn a usefull language, c++

> So, I find a C++ tutorial, and skip over chap. 1,2,& 3 - which
> are just a review of C - and in the part about classes, they
> mention overloading. I never have understood that, so I go back to
> "functions" to look it up. On the way, I discover that, instead
> of just passing pointers to functions, they've made up a whole
> new concept, borrowed from Pascal or Ada or something, of passing
> "by reference." And they've turned everything around! The address
> of x isn't &x, it's x&. And you don't dereference it with *y,
> noooOOOOOoooo- it's y*.

So what?

This operator is like most of the others left associative. It's just
like the const keyword. Most people screw this up anyway, you see hardly
any code where const is used the way its supposed to be since most
compilers also allow const and co to be right associative.

If you want to learn C++ then by god dont read any screwed up tutorials
on the web or any C++ in X days books. If you do so then I'll understand
your frustration.


kind regards -ph-

Rich Grise wrote:
[C++ rant]
> Buncha damn nincompoops, and now we're stuck with it.

there is anoher object-oriented extentsion to C, called Objective C, which
is said to be nicer. i've never looked at it, though.

anyway, with rants like these, i can never resist the urge to post this
link:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html>

and this one:

"Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: any sufficiently complicated C or
Fortran program contains an ad hoc informally-specified bug-ridden slow
implementation of half of Common Lisp."

- Phil Greenspun

from <http://www.paulgraham.com/quotes.html>

--
Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joost Kremers wrote:

> Franz M. Sauerzopf wrote:
>> C++ has its drawbacks like so many programming languages, but its success
>> did not come by chance.
>
> yeah, like MS's success did not come by chance...
>
> the sheer fact that something is popular doesn't mean it's good. in fact,
> if there's any correlation between popularity and quality, it's usually
> the other way around...

Depends on what you're measuring as a mark of quality. MS's success was
based on other thing than its code quality, easy access for developers for
example.

C++ has the advantage of being backwards compatible with C, so developers
didn't have to rewrite all their code just to take advantage of C++'s new
features. Think about it, if you had the choice of either spending a huge
amount of time and money to switch to a new, technically better system, or
spend virtually no time/money to switch to a system that offers equivalent
functionality, you'd pretty much be forced to pick the latter.

Blumf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBEg/IMid3IcxolsoRAt9JAJ0RvZUqPd9b8VizLgGUvaX530DY4wCeK TIa
kiDi7Izxe3vMHFq6faXONX8=
=0/hw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Franz M. Sauerzopf wrote:
>> C++ has its drawbacks like so many programming languages, but its success
>> did not come by chance.
>
>yeah, like MS's success did not come by chance...

MS's success is not chance! Gates has had many opportunities to
blow it, and yet he continues to make even *more* money. But
the quality of his *product* is definitely "chance", because it
has nothing to do with MS's success!

MS's success is related to Bill Gates' ability to define
effective business processes. The guy would make billions if he
wanted to sell flowers! And given his continued extreme success
I just can't accept that any of it is an accident (which is
indeed exactly what I too originally thought it was for several
years in the 80's).

Not that I approve of selling crap to make billions; just that
Gates is a lot more than just lucky. He is both *damned* good,
and *very* greedy.

>the sheer fact that something is popular doesn't mean it's good. in fact,
>if there's any correlation between popularity and quality, it's usually
>the other way around...

Commonly true; but often not. That makes it difficult to use as
a criteria. I don't think it applies to any programming
language, much less to C++ (and I am not a fan of C++).

Personally, I wouldn't call it chance, but I think C++'s
popularity is strictly a result of it being derived from C, and
more or less representing an Object Oriented version of C. C of
course is popular because it is an exceptionally efficient and
logical systems programming language. Which is to say, C is
popular *because* of its quality, and C++ is popular because it
is related to C.

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com