>>7
Q: So, what are the errors in the FQA?
A: FQA is clueless nonsense written by clueless nitwit, blah blah, blah blah, can't point out a single factual error or even minor inaccuracy because I don't know C++ anywhere near as good as Yossi (he still is a clueless nitwit though), but it doesn't matter because hurr durr it's his subjective opinion and nobody can make their own opinion based on facts in his FQA.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-14 6:00
if you have to link shit you read because you cant come up with a coherent argument on your own then you have no right to even join the discussion
>>9
look at me, linking shit all over your thread
u mad?
LOL!
>>13
C is a shitty language. C++'s backwards compatibility with C is a major flaw. However, without it, C++ would not be here today as a faster, more popular, better alternative.
There is a reason why you should not program in C++ as if it were C today, and that is because there are much safer alternatives.
C is unsafe crap.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-14 16:48
>C is unsafe crap.
This is truly typical for a modern age developer: scared as shit.
Instead of behaving/developing like a man, they need Mom to hold their hand. Mom being a safe language. Just like what is happing around us, kids playgrounds are made safe, to such a degree that kids cannot get injured even how hard they try. Because they were never exposed to threatening situations, they will be incapable to sense it when they are grown-up and enter the real world. Always longing for a world with reduced opportunities because being safe has become the new holy grail.
Of course we need unsafe languages, because they give opportunity to explore and discover new opportunities. And yes, they can be hot to handle, that is why we have multi-year training. Computers with software have always been very complex machines. Only a fool would expect this otherwise. Only the ignorant feel comfortable in environments where mistakes have no consequence.
>>15
Stop! You hurt >>16,14s feelings.
You shouldnt be this mean, he is still a child.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-14 17:10
>>15
this is really how C programmers think, they want to use C for everything just because they think it gives them more power and control. You can make compiled code in D that is just as fast and C, has safe pointers and garbage collection, but a C programmer wont use it because they think its a sissy language.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-14 17:12
>>17
fuck off and die you in a fire you cock sucking piece of shit
>>18
If you want power and control, use assembly. C has plenty of instances of undefined behaviour which may translate into security bugs in your code.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-14 17:50
>>19
If you are a shit programmer, you can use the best tools ever designed and still produce shit code. In contrast the best programmers really don't care which language they use because what they touch turns to gold. Fussing and bitching about languages is more a reflection of ones own abilities.
>>20 In contrast the best programmers really don't care which language they use because what they touch turns to gold.
Right, then go write golden code in PHP 4.
>>22
To be honest, compilers are so complex that all those layers of optimization might introduce security issues even if the initial code is perfectly standard-compliant. An assembler is far smaller and easier to check for errors.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-14 18:28
>>23 To be honest, compilers are so complex that all those layers of optimization might introduce security issues even if the initial code is perfectly standard-compliant. An assembler is far smaller and easier to check for errors.
Yes but how do you know that what you assemble with your now safe assembler is safe? Besides optimization isn't exactly what Annex K is all about, you should check it out.
C: The language where you are rewarded with a segfault by reinventing the wheel.
Did I rustle your jimmies, Cfags? I'll be over here, enjoying my standard SEPPLES algorithm implementations and not having to manually manage my strings.
>>24 Yes but how do you know that what you assemble with your now safe assembler is safe?
I can cross-check it with another assembler, or disassemble the generated code manually if I'm really bored.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-14 19:53
>>24
>Yes but how do you know that what you assemble with your now safe assembler is safe? Besides optimization isn't exactly what Annex K is all about, you should check it out.
that might be true in embedded software where code rarely goes past a few hundred lines. But in large scale code thousands of line long, there is no way you can organise code flow just by stepping through it in a debugger. All the speed gains of asm are lost because there is no way humanly possible that a programmer can optimise code at a high level like a compiler can.
>>28
Use asm for low-level, use Lisp for high-level. Problem solved.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-14 20:43
It's a well known fact that people who love C and hate C++ are whiny neckbeards who never learned C++ because it was too hard. All of their complaints about C++ are either complaints about its implementation of OO (which is much saner than java's and isn't forced on the user), or all of the flaws that it inherited from C.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-14 20:50
>>11
The funny thing is that C++ isn't even that powerful. I can do a lot more by mixing C with code generation than I can do with the built in features of C++. But C++ is just powerful enough to make you program implode.
>>19
The solution there is to avoid dependence on undefined behavior.
>>23
If an optimization performed by a compiler introduces a security issue, then that isn't an optimization, that's a delerberate action performed by the compiler to ruin your program. An optimized program and an unoptimized program should be equivalent to one another, outside of undefined behavior. Again, the solution here is to not depend on undefined behavior.
make a facility in seeples that automatically creates a pretty printing method for any class. This is similar to the implicit destructor method that calls the destructor on all of its members, except it is not a built in feature. Write one piece of code in C++ that will automatically create this method for every single class you define. You should not have to write any extra text in the class definition, and there should be no duplicate listings of the members of the class. Duplicate listings of members are error prone and can easily go out of date with respect to the class definition. You can only use features in standard C++. Good luck.
If you believe that this example has no point, and that debuggers are sufficient for getting such information, then change the context to streaming the class instance over an internet connection. Certain elements of the class, based upon their type, will have different sizes and different rules for endian conversion. Make a mechanism that automatically generates a serializer for your favorite protocol.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-15 1:04
>>35 make a facility in seeples that automatically creates a pretty printing method for any class.
Clarify that... Are you talking about reflection? Or are you talking about a program that reads a .cpp file from disk and reformats it?
The former is very hard (in C++) and the latter is easy in pretty much any language.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-15 1:12
>>36
Never mind -- I'm going to infer from the rest of your post that you're talking about reflection. I'm not the guy you were arguing with, and I agree that this would be a really nasty thing to do in C++.
However, the hard-core C++ faithfuls would argue that this is something no C++ programmer would ever want. The whole idea of C and C++ is to carry around as little baggage as possible, and what you're asking for is to essentially turn C++ into C#.