C++ SHOULD BE CALLED ++C
1
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-21 14:33
Why would we want to use something before it is incremented ? Discuss.
2
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-21 14:40
Because ++C looks gay
3
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-21 14:49
C++ is a statement oriented language not an expression oriented language .
4
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 4:31
Ideally, it would be called Sepples, or my personal favourite, ``Destructive Post-Increment of the C Variable.''
5
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 4:39
>>1
When the thing in question is Sepples, why would we want to use it anyway?
6
Name:
Anonymous 2007-12-22 4:51
>>4
In C there are 'objects'. No 'variables'.
7
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 5:32
C++ should be called `Sepples'
8
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 6:34
>>8
If you overload the operator it may happen that it's not destructive
9
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 6:52
10
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 7:12
>>8
Well, true, but it doesn't really make sense for the ++ unary operator to not act upon the variable on which it is invoked.
11
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 8:51
Having "+" in a language name is dumb, it should just be called OOC (Object-Oriented C).
12
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 8:54
C Object Oriented Templated Extension Retrofit.
13
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 8:56
>>12
my other car is a
COOTER
14
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 8:58
>>12
What does the `C' stand for in ``C Object Oriented Templated Extension Retrofit''?
15
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 9:09
>>14
16
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 9:22
>>14
COOTER. It is recommended to use lazy evaluation and/or tail recursion when evaluating this recursive acronym, in order to minimize the risk of stack overflow.
>>15
I invented this piece of ASCII art, please do not use it with my express permission, thank you.
17
Name:
Anonymous 2007-12-22 10:08
18
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 10:40
19
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 11:21
20
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 11:50
>>19
Yes, but it's written as ``
undefined'' in code.
21
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 12:12
>>20
In most cases you'll want to use
error :: String -> a instead.
22
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 12:17
>>21
Not if you are writing abstract bullshite you'll never understand.
23
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 15:30
>>20
in other (more correct) words: "no".
you idiot
24
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 15:47
Be back later, gentlemen. I have to reimplement my interface to COOTER again...
25
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 16:06
>>11
That would be an awfully big claim for a langauge that's really just C+=committee_selected_misfeatures to make.
26
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 20:37
27
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-22 20:40
28
Name:
Anonymous
2009-03-18 2:49
Don't call me gay, but I need some mary jay!
29
Name:
Anonymous 2011-02-04 14:30