|
the D programming language |
Kitty Cat
Member #2,815
October 2002
|
I wouldn't doubt typedefs in C++ to be mainly discouraged. You really don't need it except when you want to duplicate an existing type. Structs and classes automatically get a type name, as do enums. A typedef doesn't do anything except make one typename out of another typename (using it to define implicit pointer or array types is just evil, so don't go there ). -- |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
For one, it would be nice to have just to be able to change the type, without changing the name. Quote: I wouldn't doubt typedefs in C++ to be mainly discouraged Probably cause it wasn't through through far enough. C++ has strict typing, and typedef misses that. Thats a bug imo. Do it all the way, or not at all. Anything else will just cause needless confusion. -- |
Kitty Cat
Member #2,815
October 2002
|
Quote: Probably cause it wasn't through through far enough. C++ has strict typing, and typedef misses that. Thats a bug imo. If it was left in for compatibility with C, it would make sense. C++ itself seems to have no use for typedef, however code coming from C (eg. static inline methods in headers) that uses typedefs may rely on the compiler accepting such "implicit conversions". -- |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Quote: code coming from C (eg. static inline methods in headers) that uses typedefs may rely on the compiler accepting such "implicit conversions". Maybe in static "C" {} sections. C++ is already incompatible enough with C that changing typedefs strictness wouldn't have made anything any more difficult. You already know C++ is going to make type casting safer, and you should have been able to expect all of the language to conform. -- |
BAF
Member #2,981
December 2002
|
C++ feels crippled to me. I can't really explain why, but when I can whip out a program in 10 minutes in C#, then spend hours getting the same thing going in C++, it's crippled. For one thing, there are no good string processing functions. At least not compared to C#'s string. Same thing goes for sockets. |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Thats pretty much my sentament. I'll use C++ for Qt, since Qt supliments a lot of things C++ doesn't have (like a decent String and regex setup). C++ tries to be more than C, but really doesn't do a good enough job for me most times. -- |
axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001
|
Quote: C++ feels crippled to me. I can't really explain why, but when I can whip out a program in 10 minutes in C#, then spend hours getting the same thing going in C++, it's crippled. For one thing, there are no good string processing functions. At least not compared to C#'s string. Same thing goes for sockets. I don't wish to sound pedantic, but language != language with libraries. You can't compare C++ without any libraries to C# and its libraries. Why don't you compare C# with Qt and tell us what you think? I've done so with the Java J2SE, and I find Qt equal or better. |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Technically, the standard library IS part of the language. libc is part of C, stdlibc++ is part of C++. -- |
Sevalecan
Member #4,686
June 2004
|
Quote: C++ feels crippled to me. I can't really explain why, but when I can whip out a program in 10 minutes in C#, then spend hours getting the same thing going in C++, it's crippled. Your definition of "crippled" is wrong. Anyway, I'd have to say... Going by Tins of '05... Something that takes you 10 hours to code in C++ probably takes me 10 minutes. And even then, do you even write C++? All of your code I ever remember seeing was C. Also, do you remember bafirc? .. The C version. http://svn.bafserv.com/svn/bafirc/ For a certain reason, this line really makes me laugh: TeamTerradactyl: SevalecanDragon: I should shoot you for even CONSIDERING coding like that, but I was ROFLing too hard to stand up. I love it! |
BAF
Member #2,981
December 2002
|
Quote: I don't wish to sound pedantic, but language != language with libraries. You can't compare C++ without any libraries to C# and its libraries. I was comparing std::string (C++'s standard library's string) to System.String (C#'s standard library's string). |
bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
|
axilmar said: I don't wish to sound pedantic, but language != language with libraries. You can't compare C++ without any libraries to C# and its libraries.
BAF said: I was comparing std::string (C++'s standard library's string) to System.String (C#'s standard library's string). That's valid. C and C++ really weren't designed with strings as a priority. In fact, they were designed before strings became as common as they are today (string operations are expensive, especially on older hardware). Still, I think the syntax of C++ is mostly awesome (I acknowledge the template vs. bit-wise operator problem - since I don't understand templates I'm oblivious to that ) and could use some more up-to-date standard libraries. I'm pretty satisfied with C♯ and C♭ (AKA D 8-)) as potential replacements. -- acc.js | al4anim - Allegro 4 Animation library | Allegro 5 VS/NuGet Guide | Allegro.cc Mockup | Allegro.cc <code> Tag | Allegro 4 Timer Example (w/ Semaphores) | Allegro 5 "Winpkg" (MSVC readme) | Bambot | Blog | C++ STL Container Flowchart | Castopulence Software | Check Return Values | Derail? | Is This A Discussion? Flow Chart | Filesystem Hierarchy Standard | Clean Code Talks - Global State and Singletons | How To Use Header Files | GNU/Linux (Debian, Fedora, Gentoo) | rot (rot13, rot47, rotN) | Streaming |
HoHo
Member #4,534
April 2004
|
Quote: Why don't you compare C# with Qt and tell us what you think? It is kind of difficult since C# bindings are not ready yet. Though there are official Java bindings for QT and they are called QT Jambi __________ |
Goalie Ca
Member #2,579
July 2002
|
C++ is quite a wonderful language. It's flexible enough to do most things. My two main gripes: 1) Library Support. std::libs sucks. C++0x is making a major push for more libraries to be made standard and some cleanup of the old libs. Most of the new stuff is from boost. Boost is a good way of doing things but it is only 1 way. C++ was designed to be flexible.. which is partly why there are so many different 3rd party libraries that each solve a problem in their own way with their own tradeoffs. ------------- |
bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
|
I was under the impression that C++0x was a new language, not a new standard for C++. Excellent. -- acc.js | al4anim - Allegro 4 Animation library | Allegro 5 VS/NuGet Guide | Allegro.cc Mockup | Allegro.cc <code> Tag | Allegro 4 Timer Example (w/ Semaphores) | Allegro 5 "Winpkg" (MSVC readme) | Bambot | Blog | C++ STL Container Flowchart | Castopulence Software | Check Return Values | Derail? | Is This A Discussion? Flow Chart | Filesystem Hierarchy Standard | Clean Code Talks - Global State and Singletons | How To Use Header Files | GNU/Linux (Debian, Fedora, Gentoo) | rot (rot13, rot47, rotN) | Streaming |
axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001
|
Quote: It is kind of difficult since C# bindings are not ready yet. Though there are official Java bindings for QT and they are called QT Jambi But C# has libraries that offer functionality similar to Qt. |
HoHo
Member #4,534
April 2004
|
Quote: But C# has libraries that offer functionality similar to Qt. There is nothing that could even remotely compete with QT __________ |
spellcaster
Member #1,493
September 2001
|
I totally agree here. Qt is awesome. The new Qt Jambi (Qt for Java, basically) is awesome as well. And not only because I got a macbook from them -- |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Quote: And not only because I got a macbook from them TT gave you a macbook? Where can I sign up? -- |
spellcaster
Member #1,493
September 2001
|
Well, I won the Qt Jambi developer contest. 1st price was the macbook -- |
nonnus29
Member #2,606
August 2002
|
Spellcaster, you are one tight lipped Mo' Fo: http://trolltech.com/company/newsroom/announcements/press.2007-01-09.6555544221 |
spellcaster
Member #1,493
September 2001
|
Mentioning tight lips in the same sentence as mo'fo made me pass out. -- |
nonnus29
Member #2,606
August 2002
|
Sorry, I should've said 'non-self-promoting Mo'Fo'.
|
Rampage
Member #3,035
December 2002
|
Johnny Tightlips: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/JohnnyTightlips.jpg -R |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Quote: Well, I won the Qt Jambi developer contest. 1st price was the macbook Wholy crap! Congrats! -- |
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Quote: Spellcaster, you are one tight lipped Mo' Fo: . http://trolltech.com/company/newsroom/announcements/press.2007-01-09.6555544221 Wow, that owns. Nice program, too. -- |
|
|