alot of noobs call themselves "programmers" after "hello world".
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-30 6:53
>>60 has never done anything in C++ beyond the typical "hello world".
Read the moderated C++ newsgroups some time. C++ is the ultimate agglutinative language, and therefore is a bitch to learn well. Most "C++ programmers" aren't.
>>62
i've made scene graphed based game engines, shells, raytracers, etc. the c++ newsgroups have nothing to do with the difficulty of learning the language. because c++ is so popular, there are plenty of c++ programmers with too much time on their hands, so they discuss every minute detail of the language on the newsgroups.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-30 18:29
i've made scene graphed based game engines
"Scene graphed"? Nice.
And how did your "scene graphed" have anything to do with using C++ well?
the c++ newsgroups have nothing to do with the difficulty of learning the language
Oh yes it does. If it was a simple language, there would be little to argue over. This is pretty obvious, guy.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-30 19:38
>>65
LOL LETS MAKE FUN OF TYPOS, ESPECIALLY ONES WHERE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A SCENE GRAPH IS
Oh yes it does. If it was a simple language, there would be little to argue over. This is pretty obvious, guy.
A simple language, huh? You have no knowledge of programming languages if you call any of them "simple".
LOL LETS MAKE FUN OF TYPOS
I doubt that was a typo, but if you say so.
ESPECIALLY ONES WHERE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A SCENE GRAPH IS
That's quite a leap of logic, Mr. Student. Your experience looks like a list of assignments, yet you seem to think you know what you're talking about.
You have no knowledge of programming languages if you call any of them "simple".
What an utterly idiotic argument. You don't need any help slitting your own throat, I see.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-31 0:01
>>67
Do you think I would actually list the category of systems I code for my job, especially on 4chan?
What an utterly idiotic argument. You don't need any help slitting your own throat, I see.
If it's an idiotic argument, then actually refute it instead of namecalling like an immature little brat. If you think any programming languages are simple, then you have never done any work with them or compilers.
Of course it's idiotic. If you stop to think about it for five seconds, you'd realize that. Compare: Logo versus Ada. Forth versus ML. Lisp versus Perl. Most DSLs with any general-purpose language.
If you think any programming languages are simple, then you have never done any work with them or compilers.
I wasn't referring to the myriad analyses and code generation, but if you really want to, please tell me implementing Forth is the same order of difficulty as Perl.
Not that implementation should have much to do with the language itself (remember that?). Ease of learning a language is largely orthogonal to implementing that language. See: malbolge, befunge, unlambda.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-31 2:35
Unless you're some sort of genius, and I've yet to meet anybody like that, calling most languages simple (including C++, Java, Python, Ruby, Lisp, etc.) shows how you've just barely touched the tip of the iceberg and think that's all there is to it. And even if you can do more than "hello world" with any, it's in the very least a stupid mistake to get cocky and understimate the problem.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-31 5:38
>>70
C++, Java, Python and Ruby ARE simple languages. Lisp is not for some people, functional programming can be a PITA sometimes. You're still a noob though.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-31 6:54
If C++ is a simple language, allow me to ask the obvious: relative to what?
Since C++ is (or was, before C99) a superset of C, then by definition, to learn C++ you need to learn all of C.
So you have C. And now should know how to use classes (patterns and all), templates, exceptions, STL and Boost. Finer details like RTTI, virtual functions, smart pointers, and so forth. Anyone who has ventured into this territory knows it takes a long time to use effectively.
C++ is a crazy powerful language, but few have mastered it. C++-- is popular for good reason.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-31 15:46
>>71
Who are you? If you are the same as >>67 and >>69, before you stated that C++ was a hard language, and now you are saying that it is simple. ??????
>>73
He isn't me. There wasn't anything to reply to.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-31 19:19
I don't know why you bother to fight about languages. They are almost all the same. It's the algorithms that matter and algorithms can be translated to nay language pretty easily.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-31 19:44
>>75 is quoting what his first year algorithms professor told him.
They are almost all the same.
Okay. You go writing your turing machine tape and ruleset, and I'll do it in a sane language.
No? But you said it's all the same!
Implement a hashtable in C and then use the builtins in a scripting language to do the same thing, and then we'll talk.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-01 3:08
>>78
Except C, which is excused for being THE low level language/portable assembly, I consider any language without builtin lists and hashes (and good syntax support for them) shit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-01 11:24
>>78
It's not that hard to make a hashtable. Or you could import a library or copypaste.