From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: [RFC] Convert builin-mailinfo.c to use The Better String Library. Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:57:45 +0200 Message-ID: <86odfstbc6.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <46DDC500.5000606@etek.chalmers.se> <1189004090.20311.12.camel@hinata.boston.redhat.com> <4AFD7EAD1AAC4E54A416BA3F6E6A9E52@ntdev.corp.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Sep 24 16:08:38 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IZoc1-0004qD-Oo for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:08:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751487AbXIXOIb (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:08:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751264AbXIXOIa (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:08:30 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:37389 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751096AbXIXOI3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:08:29 -0400 Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IZoYY-0001Ua-5m for git@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:05:02 +0000 Received: from pd95b0fdb.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.91.15.219]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:05:02 +0000 Received: from dak by pd95b0fdb.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:05:02 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pd95b0fdb.dip0.t-ipconnect.de User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:AwpDJIYkkJmbt+bTisJRBKHw3DI= Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: figo writes: > http://www.research.att.com/~bs/applications.html > > just as Bjarne once wrote in his TC++PL, its hard to teach an old dog new > tricks. Its even harder to give quality education about how to use something > to someone who doesnt want to learn. > > you hate high level, then continue programming operative systems, > please NEVER DO something else. C++ was designed to give programmers > high level tools and still being able to take care about > performance. > > portability wont be possible after a standard is published and some >couple of years given to the compiler developers. C++ had its >standard in 1998, and add two or three years for compiler development >= 2002. "Quite recently", way more recently that your last use of C++ >I can bet. Care to explain why there are still not two numerical C++ libraries with compatible matrix classes? What use is talking about portability and high level when a basic interoperability feature that has been available since the sixties (more than 4 decades ago) in Fortran has not yet managed to make it into C++? C++ by now more or less offers a (somewhat deficient) standardized way to work with complex numbers, but matrices are still not standardized in any manner, and libraries won't interoperate. So C++ should get its head wrapped around the _low_ level problems first. It is a bloody shame that it still has not caught up with Fortran IV (or even Fortran II) with regard to usefulness for numerical libraries. It is not a matter of "hating high level" to see that C++ is mostly focused about addressing the wrong kinds of problems in the wrong ways. The pain/gain ratio is just bad. -- David Kastrup