|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 10 July 2002 00H:25, Noah Silva wrote:
> > Yes, you should generally pick one approach within a module. I would
> > definitely recommend avoiding the mixture of these two string approaches
> > within a given application. BTW, If you wanted to trash the lack of good
> > string support in the C++ language, I would NOT disagree there.
>
> lol
> but that's not worth doing, because I know nobody would argue, and
> that's no fun.
Well, maybe I have a perverse sense of fun.
>
> > This is like saying that if C is was so good, why would anybody still
> > program in assembly. For some people/projects assembly language is still
> > the simplest/most efficient way to do things. That doesn't mean everyone
> > should program in assembly, or that you should always mix C/assembly. For
> > most people, C++ should allow people to write better, easier to read, and
> > sometimes even faster code with fewer lines of code. That doesn't mean
> > "why would anybody still program in straight C". And, just because you
> > can write better code in C++ doesn't mean you automatically will.
>
> YEs but trying to do both at once is a mess. Kung-fu is a good fighting
> style, maybe shodokan is too, but you have to pick one and use it for
> any particular fight, or your ass will be kicked. Having C and C++
I slightly disagree here. Assuming that you are into fighting: You want to
fight in one style for a given phase of fighting during a fight. But, you
certainly want to know more than one style of fighting! Otherwise, you will
be like the computer simulation of a fighter that is limited to one style of
fighting. Just about EVERYONE eventually figures out your weaknesses and
eventually will be able to beat you. A really good fighter will develop
several styles and know when to use which ones.
This is a surprisingly good analogy for the point I was trying to make. I am
NOT saying "mix all of your fighting styles at the same time". I am saying
"at least understand the different fighting styles" and know when they are
appropriate. Having many weapons available is a good thing. On a subtler
level, understanding the history behind your weapon can help you wield it
better.
In their quest to adopt all of the latest, fanciest moves, others may have
forgotten the basics. Don't forget to study the basics. And, certainly, don't
eliminate them from your fighting style just because there are fancier moves.
Sometimes there's nothing more effective than the simplest, most basic move.
> being totally different and yet integrated could be useful for adding
> OOP to C programs (and in a way similar to my statement before that I
> would like a compiler system that could compile different procedures of
> different languages into one program), but also invites programmers to
> make a mess, something that C already allows to a large extent.
EVERY language allows programmers to make a mess. I'm not sure why you think C
"invites" this. Generally, tighter controls might limit how you can hurt
yourself. But, if that is the goal, then VB would probably be at the top of
the list. I'll admit that I've had to use it for work on occassion. I find it
extremely constricting. I much prefer power and flexibility.
>
> -- noah silva
>
>
Cheers,
Jason Nocks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAj0sko4ACgkQ3CryLfCgqRnJ4ACggoJnwkFpH2aSKVIxkgK0u1/R
I30AnR8Fvgy5sUrt7Fl61SzOKoXUTe0S
=esut
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|