|
Brought to us by the Year of Linux on the Desktop Foundation?
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
modified 16-Jun-14 9:19am.
|
|
|
|
|
But but but it's the cloud that's irrelevent! 
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft has changed its service agreement to be less intrusive but retained the option of scanning users' data. "In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
|
|
|
|
|
You should go on with that quote...
Quote: Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
In a recent Office Blogs post, Microsoft's Sanjeevini Mittal explained why the company believes that Office is superior for collaboration across multiple devices. And they know suboptimal
|
|
|
|
|
If we're so unhappy about OO and even recognize many of the faults of C++, where is the replacement? Why are we still all using C++? "The major cause of complaints is C++ undoubted success."
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad C# came along when it did and I never had to use C++.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately it really doesn't cut it as a C++ replacement.
Useless in the environments people still resort to C/C++: games, OS development (mostly), embedded systems, hard realtime etc.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
None of which I do.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Why are we still all using C++?
Because there is really nothing else for low-level high-performance software. Well, except C, but that's a step back from C++.
|
|
|
|
|
C: what more do you need?
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
I need something less broken than C.
|
|
|
|
|
Then certainly not C++.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
C++ is ceirtanly less broken than C, but is not a replacement for C++ 
|
|
|
|
|
It's more brokener; it has all of the breaks of C and adds its own.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
It provides mechanisms to avoid some of the worst aspects of C. For instance, you almost never need to use horrible C preprocessor macros in C++. The type system is stronger than in C (albeit still not strong enough) - there are less implicit conversions. The new C++ 11 initialization syntax fixes all the problems with implicit conversions on initialization. The C++ Standard library offers sane strings and dynamic arrays that C still doesn't have, etc, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
Are you saying that it is no longer backward compatible with C?
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: provides mechanisms
Which can be ignored I assume.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: you almost never need to use horrible C preprocessor macros
But I could, and I would.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Which can be ignored I assume.
Some yes. Some, like the stricter type system - no.
PIEBALDconsult wrote: But I could, and I would.
And you would have no-one but yourself to blame.
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Because there is really nothing else for low-level high-performance software.
But that's what they're asking. Why is there nothing else?
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin McFarlane wrote: Why is there nothing else?
If you look at the languages that were marketed as "the C++ replacement": Java, C#, D, you'll see that they are higher-level productivity languages - replacement for VB maybe, but not for C++. The only new language I am aware of that may be targeting the same niche as C++ is Rust, but it is not stable yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: If you look at the languages that were marketed as "the C++ replacement": Java, C#, D, you'll see that they are higher-level productivity languages
But author is not discussing those (apart from D, which is low-level, not sure why you think it isn't) but mainly D, Rust and Go.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Well, D and Go are really not low level enough to be a replacement for C++. Rust may be, but is not ready.
|
|
|
|
|
So we need to wait for Double-D ?
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Rust
Not sure I should trust a language name "Rust", somehow makes me think the code will rot.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Because the devil is in the details. And when you look to create something that replaces C++, you inevitably land, head first, into the nastiness that C++ rather admirably handles.
"Replacing C++ with something clean" looks great on a whiteboard. But, in practice, it's impossible. You can't retain the advantage of being that close to the system without exposing the underlying implementation.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
