Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

C++ question

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-16 20:39

Hey prog!! I am learning C++ and I was wondering how I could extend its syntax. Any C++ experts there want to tell me how? I know C++ is really low level so it should be simple. Thanks!!!

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-16 20:59

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-16 21:03

>>2
So, no?

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-16 22:04

>>3
Let's try this again, shall we. http://lmddgtfy.com/?q=extend+c%2B%2B+syntax

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-16 22:31

>>4
Oh man, don't tell me the language can't even be customized...

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-16 23:29

>>5
I think it's time for you to go back where you came from (Forth?).

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-16 23:45

>>6
I don't understand! C++ is supposed to be so powerful... ( ._.)

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 0:11

extend its syntax
U MENA OPERATOR OVERLOADING?

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 0:23

>>8
What's that for?

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 1:14

>>9
Making other programmers who read your code cry.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 4:02

I remember there was such compiler, which allowed to extend C++ syntax. What was it called? Tendra? Well anyway, just like with Nemerle, it LOVED to fall to SEGFAULT.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 4:57

>>11 You fell to sagefault

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 8:17

Why would you need to extend its syntax? Most Sepplers can make do with what's already there.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 10:13

>>13
I had read of this technique where you program "in the language of the problem," and I thought that made a lot of sense.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 10:16

>>14
Pray tell us, what is the meaning of "programming in the language of the problem"

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 10:18

>>15
You name your variables in the language of the problem (the customer).

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 10:22

Ok, I've been had. This guy is pretty good. 8/10.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 10:24

>>15
It is a joke that C++ is a problem language.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 11:04

>>17
I don't know what he's trying to pretend to be, but he's failing miserably.
3/10 for managing to troll some random passer-by who accidentally wandered into /prog/.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 12:04

perl always rates me 1/8

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 12:37

>>16
I don't think my manager would agree that customers are a problem.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 12:51

>>13
Seppling is really all about making do with a shitty situation.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 13:54

>>22
While I agree with this, I believe that the "shitty situation" isn't C++ itself, but programming languages in general.  The fact that C++ is still the industry standard isn't C++'s fault.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 14:29

>>23
industry standard
What industry would that be? Because it sure as fuck isn't any of the ones that involve programming.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 15:38

>>24
The C++ coding industry, of course.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 15:39

>>24
The modern video game industry is built on C++. They need reusable components written in portable assembler desperately enough to make C++ work. My heart breaks every time I think about it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 16:10

>>26
The modern video game industry is built on treating programmers like shit.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 16:29

>>27
``C++'' is short for ``treating programmers like shit.'' You know I'm right.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 16:34

>>23
The fact that C++ is still the industry standard isn't C++'s fault.
That's true. Its position has nothing to do with its actual merits (none).

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 17:08

>>28
You are right.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 17:13

>>1
Use Lisp instead.
And I'm not just saying it because we love SICP and cirkle jerks over it but because it's probably the most extendable language... Ever.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 17:49

lulz. maybe you should learn c++ before worrying about 'extending syntax.'

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 17:56

>>32
That's how masochists think.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 23:09

>>32
back to /b/, please

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 1:27

>>34
XD LOL

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 12:20

>>32
Hmm. Are you telling me there is something special about C++ that I don't know yet? Can you give me a hint?

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 12:32

>>36
It's shitty

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 14:09

>>36
No, he's telling you that C++ is so powerful that if you knew it well, you wouldn't have any desire to extend its syntax. Many C++ programmers have this delusion.

Although, knowing C++ well will still make you want to stay far away from its syntax train wreck.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 14:33

>>38
C++ is so powerful that if you knew it well, you wouldn't have any desire to extend its syntax
Reminds me of that bit in the Hitchhiker's series about environment control and not needing to open the windows. It's funny when I read it in a fictional setting, but disturbing when talking about programming.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 15:26

>>39
Extending syntax isn't as basic as opening windows. It's entirely unnecessary in a Turing-complete language.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 15:47

>>40
So is operator overloading. So are templates. And yet... C++.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 15:54

>>40
You're just showing your ignorance.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 16:07

>>42
You're just showing your ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 16:47

>>40
Extending syntax isn't as basic as opening windows.
It is in certain *cough* paren-based languages and a few others
It's entirely unnecessary in a Turing-complete language.
If that is your argument then we can do away with everything except lambda as Alonzo Church and others have shown. The reason languages include certain features is that they make it more useful and make programs easier to write, not because they are essential to attaining Turing Completeness.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 17:09

paren-based
Stop that.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 17:43

>>45
He mena ``monad-based''.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 19:02

>>46
God, I hope not.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 21:54

>>47
Agreed. Arrows are THE FUTURE!!!

Actually, I have no idea what they are.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 2:43

>>46
My C++ compiler doesn't include any information about "monads." :(

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 13:42

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 16:38

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 17:20

machine language is the synonym for turing-completeness yet use use memonics and macro assemblers why do you think that is?

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 17:33

>>52
You're making slightly less sense than that markov bot.

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 14:51

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-17 20:09

that's cool and all, but check 'em

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List