>>1
Boost is practically part of the standard, it's so handy. However I think you'd better feel twice before learning Sepples, especially if you're already a good C programmer. You'd get more out of writing an object system for C.
Name:
Anonymous2009-04-06 15:46
OP Speaking
>>4
That's ok, since I usually follow an object-oriented style in my C programs (though the language doesn't support me, I usually work with opaque struct types and I provide primitives for them).
I even know about some libraries that build up an effective object oriented framework for C, but actually I don't appreciate them: much more complicated than normal C programming, in my opinion.
Name:
Anonymous2009-04-06 16:11
Boost is useful, but I'm awfully suspicious of it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-04-06 16:12
Boost can only make a shitty language shittier.
Name:
HMA2009-04-06 16:26
Boost is good. It supports <<smart pointers>>, one of mankind's greatest inventions, offers portable threads & stuff, and even gives you access to a secret area of SICP with lambda, bind, and improved functional constructs.
Qt is more useful, though, and offers decent boost::thread & boost::smart_ptr equivalents. The signals and slots are God's gift to real programmers like us who build EXPERT SCALABLE HIGH-THROUGHPUT FOURIER-TRANSFORMED MULTI-CHANNEL DATA ACQUISITION & PROCESSING PUBLICATION-READY SCIENTIFIC APPLICATIONS in C++ in order to leverage our core skillsets. So I'd say boost is good, but Qt is far more useful in the short term.
Oh! Now I've got a question for you, mr.8! Is it worthy to tie a software with a specific framework as QT? This will bind the future development to a specific platform! Is that good? What do you think?
>>13
I recall hearing about some police officers who were required to pocket their spent casings on the firing range rather than dropping them, because someone didn't want to sweep up later. When in the field, they did this and died because of it.
tl;dr — garbage collection > ``smart'' pointers.
Name:
Anonymous2009-04-06 17:11
>>9
Qt actually makes it more portable (read up). It doesn't really matter now since it's LGPL, so you don't have the old licensing issues with GPL/commercial licensing. You can use wxWidgets or whatever, too, if you're masochistic. >>10 Compiler detected. >>11
A pointer that you can copy/assign/stuff, and when all the copies went out of scope takes care of deleting its data. Roughly. >>12
A++ good rating would read again
Name:
Anonymous2009-04-06 18:03
>>14
Such a crying shame that 'C' doesn't have garbage collection.
C doesnt need garbage collection, just use the stack for everything
Name:
Anonymous2009-04-06 20:52
>>18
If I may ask, how do you do variable-size arrays, Mr Troll McTroll?
Name:
Anonymous2009-04-06 21:00
>>19
You don't, instead you make every array you allocate on the stack big enough to fit anything you would need.
Name:
Anonymous2009-04-07 0:28
Mr Troll McTroll is right, C results in much more efficient code that way.
Name:
Anonymous2009-04-07 2:03
>>19
variable sized arrays are physically impossible due to physical memory cells being discrete, extending allocated portion of memory requires overhead in moving other data out of used pages and into free pages, the array in the physical memory is still of static size