Thinking in Sepples Vol. 2

I have just finished reading part 2 of this book and I feel so fucking disappointed with the whole language. I thought the standard algorithms would let me avoid writing boring loops. I got predicates and funky syntax instead.
I thought more advanced template techniques were an awesome way to keep type-safety. Nobody mentioned there was no way to indicate what methods were needed by the template (aka concepts in C++0xF).

I thought it would be fun to try some more advanced C++ in a project I'm planning. Now it looks like it would be fucking painful. Is there anyone in here with professional C++ experience with those features? Are these features worth using in the long run?

>>1
How about some Common Lisp instead? C++ is wrong in every way: avoid it.

Common Lisp's features can't disappoint you because Common Lisp doesn't have any features.

C++ was created as joke. It was Bjarne Stroustrup's way of trolling idiots for over 20 years. Just try Ocaml or Objective-C and you will realize how convoluted and shitty C++ is.

>>3
Of course you're joking, but just in case someone believes you: macros, closures, condition system, CLOS, etc., etc.

>>2
It's wrong in what way? Examples badly needed.
>>4
Both Ocaml and Obj-C were at least as shitty and convoluted but in different areas and lacked the libraries C++ had to offer.
>>5
Can't use LISP because of resource constraints.

>>6
Both Ocaml and Obj-C were at least as shitty and convoluted but in different areas and lacked the libraries C++ had to offer.
In what areas? Examples badly needed.

>>6
Both Ocaml and Obj-C were at least as shitty and convoluted but in different areas
In what way is Obj-C convoluted? It does lack some useful features, but what is there is pretty solid. Ocaml is pretty ugly but I would pick it any day before C++.

and lacked the libraries C++ had to offer.
One word: Obj-C++.

Can't use LISP because of resource constraints.
What resource constraints?

>>6
[quote]In what areas? Examples badly needed. [/quote]
>>8
[quote]In what way is Obj-C convoluted? It does lack some useful features, but what is there is pretty solid. Ocaml is pretty ugly but I would pick it any day before C++.[/quote]
http://www.podval.org/~sds/ocaml-sucks.html
This sums it up.
I admit I don't have much experience with Obj-C but I had problems using it.

>>8
[quote]Obj-C++[/quote]
This looks interesting. If I could interface with boost then it would be awesome.
[quote]What resource constraints? [/quote]
Memory and response time. I have a couple of big, weighted graphs and I have to walk through them almost constantly with A* and dijkstra. The graphs are changed relatively infrequently.

>>9
http://www.podval.org/~sds/ocaml-sucks.html
I didn't ask about Ocaml, I already know what's wrong with it. I asked about Obj-C.

This looks interesting. If I could interface with boost then it would be awesome.
Of course you can. I don't know why you would want to, though.

Memory and response time. I have a couple of big, weighted graphs and I have to walk through them almost constantly with A* and dijkstra. The graphs are changed relatively infrequently.
Oh. You just thought you couldn't use Lisp. I thought there might be a real reason along the lines of a fucking tiny embedded shitplatform.

>>9
http://www.podval.org/~sds/ocaml-sucks.html
  1. Make no mistake: Java/C/C++/C#/Perl are even worse! There appears to be just one good tool^[*], with OCaml coming a distant second.
  2. I know a few very smart people who love OCaml, so my personal opinion that OCaml sucks does not mean that you will not love it.

*. http://www.podval.org/~sds/tool.html : explicit Lisp dick-sucking, Paul Graham style.

>>10
I don't know Objective-C at all. Could you point me to a good book?
I'm not familiar with LISP either and the learning curve looks pretty steep.
>>11
Yeah, I know.

>>12
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ObjectiveC/ObjC.pdf

Also, read SICP.

>>6
It's wrong in what way? Examples badly needed.
Every way. Think of something about Sepples, and it's wrong. I mean, even starting from the top, infix syntax is an iffy decision. But besides that: mixing new features with those from C++ means you've got to know two ways to do everything, each of which fails in different circumstances, it doesn't even have FUCKING KEYWORD ARGUMENTS, its macros are pathetically weak, its approach to memory protection is to let you use pointers then crash (and the pointer syntax, although inherited, isn't especially good), templates are the worst approach to generic programming I've ever seen, static typing without a powerful type system is utterly brain-dead, as is weak typing, it's still using C strings, there are contexts in which certain features can't be used (array initialisers, macros, if/then) for no logical reason at all, iostreams suck hard (how do I hard coded order of parameters in messages?), exception systems are dumb, because they force you to either restart a possibly lengthy process or else code recovery logic at a level too low for your application's logic, there's no garbage collection by default, and I really don't feel like thinking about Sepples any more right now.

And then when it comes to implementability, by being frequently ambiguous Sepples makes it impossible to write good, fast compilers.

>>9
Memory and response time. I have a couple of big, weighted graphs and I have to walk through them almost constantly with A* and dijkstra. The graphs are changed relatively infrequently.
And what makes you think CL is not suitable for this? It will even make it easier to implement the caching strategy you probably ought to employ.

>>14
I hate you. I just finished the book and you're right. I see it now. Sepples is full of AIDS and inconsistency. I'm going to cry myself to sleep now.
ಥ_ಥ

>>15
That's great. Now eat shit and die.

>>16
back to /b/, please.

ಥ_ಥ
wtf is this? a ballsack?

http://www.podval.org/~sds/tool.html

I RAGEd so hard I broke my chair.

>>19
Why?

>>20
LISP fags are the most insufferable language devotees.

>>21
shut up

>>21
You're just mad because you can't justify your lack of LISP, even to yourself.

>>23
My lack of Lisp is easily justified by my high fiber diet.

>>24
I will, along with my Kellog's All-Bran Breakfast Cereals.

>>19
That page is 9 years old.

>>26
LISP is 50 years old. Happy birthday LISP!

               , , , , ,
               # # # # #
              _#_#_#_#_#_
             {_` ` ` ` `_}
            _{_._._._._._}_
           {_  H A P P Y  _}
          _{_._._._._._._._}_
         {_ B I R T H D A Y _}
     .---{_._._._._._._._._._}---.
    (   `"""""""""""""""""""""`   )
     `~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

>>26
And?

Answering OP's quations -- "yes", and "it depends".  The funky features in contemporary C++ are great for showing off that you are a ninja black belt and know how to bend the language to your will to do things that plain 'C' programmers never dreamed of  -- but then you'll be the one stuck maintaining it, and in any case, you can find another language that cuts through half of the crap.

Put it this way -- I write the ninja C++ for money; for fun I use pretty much anything else.  And for the graph traversal you want I'd choose something functional -- while I'm currently on an Erlang kick and would choose that at the moment, even F# (aka OCaml.Net) would be better than Sepples for the job.

>>29
Thanks for the reply.  On the whole it really feels like an industrial standard. Powerful, capable of great performance but an overkill for most stuff. I have finished the book and I'm doing some exercises to get a hang of all the features and for fun (I think I might be slightly masochistic). That and a ninja skill will look good on my resume.


               , , , , ,
               # # # # #
              _#_#_#_#_#_
             {_` ` ` ` `_}
            _{_._._._._._}_
           {_  H A P P Y  _}
          _{_._._._._._._._}_
         {_ B I R T H D A Y _}
     .---{_._._._._._._._._._}---.
    (   `"""""""""""""""""""""`   )
     `~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Lain.

<-- check em dubz

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

bampu pantsu