From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Steven Burns" Subject: Re: [RFC] Convert builin-mailinfo.c to use The Better String Library. Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:19:19 -0600 Message-ID: References: <46DDC500.5000606@etek.chalmers.se> <1189004090.20311.12.camel@hinata.boston.redhat.com> <4AFD7EAD1AAC4E54A416BA3F6E6A9E52@ntdev.corp.microsoft.com> <86odfstbc6.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 25 21:19:57 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 1IaFwi-0008PQ-Gb for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:19:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752512AbXIYTTl (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:19:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752583AbXIYTTl (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:19:41 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:55972 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752394AbXIYTTk (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:19:40 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IaFwO-0001wz-05 for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:19:28 +0000 Received: from 200.9.63.21 ([200.9.63.21]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:19:27 +0000 Received: from royalstream by 200.9.63.21 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:19:27 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 200.9.63.21 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: The C++ community in general suffers a lot from the NIH Syndrome. Matrixes, Strings, Vectors, everybody creates their own which are always, or course, superior to what's already available. Again, is not the language's fault, a language is just a language. It's the way it has been driven. My two cents. "David Kastrup" wrote in message news:86odfstbc6.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz... > 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 >