Re: }Re: [Sheflug] c++ & mem

[Will Newton <nospam [at] misconception.org.uk>]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Alex Hudson wrote:

> No, not really. Windows has been pretty much binary compatible since year
> dot, RH7 broke a lot of things, C++ linkages included. I'm not a RedHat
> hater, I use it at work every day (versions from 4 thru' 6, but not 7). It's
> just that RH7 sucks eggs.

Let's see:
egcs, gcc 2.95.2, and gcc 3.0 have different ABIs. And adding another is
that big a deal? 2.95.2 is probably the buggiest gcc I have ever used, and
egcs is very incomplete for C++ anyway.
RH7 has some silly bugs, but it's a .0 release...

> > Pointers to functions are a valid way of doing things. And one of the main
> > reasons Java sucks so badly.
>
> No. Pointers to functions are "valid". So are pointers in general. But what
> you don't realise, is pointers suck and Java doesn't :))

Java being one of the few languages since the beginning of time that
doesn't have higher order functions.
Boxed/unboxed storage, no macros, no multiple inheritance, no
paramaterized classes and some frankly bizarre decisions in the class
library. It does have it's plus points (complete portable class library)
but give me Python any day of the week.

> > It's fast and clean. No, it doesn't have any compile time or run time
> > checks, but you can write good code without it.
>
> Fast and clean?! Anything which relies on C-preprocessor can hardly be
> described "clean". You could write it as an inline function.. but then, as
> you say, we lose the checking. Which is the whole point.

"Clean"? Is that when the code is more important than the program? And it
is fast.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.