delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/05/17/17:38:02

From: "Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: C++, complex, etc
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 22:12:39 +0400
Organization: MTU-Intel ISP
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <3922E117.561584EE@mtu-net.ru>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000517101641 DOT 4709E-100000 AT is> <39224964 DOT BBFA67CB AT mtu-net DOT ru> <8fu3ke$fd0$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp104-101.dialup.mtu-net.ru
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: gavrilo.mtu.ru 958589778 62734 212.188.104.101 (17 May 2000 18:56:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse AT mtu DOT ru
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 May 2000 18:56:18 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: ru,en
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> 
> Alexei A. Frounze <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru> wrote:
> 
> > I can define my own classes instead. Just a C++ compiler is needed, no C++
> > library.  Stream I/O could be implemented w/o C++ library, complex stuff,
> > strings, etc. can also be done w/o that library.
> 
> Sure :-(. And you would be willing and able to write your own I/O
> library for all of the dozens of computing platforms out there
> yourself, wouldn't you? Or use libraries written by others, which
> almost certainly would end up incompatible with each other, on
> different platforms?
> 
> Sorry, Alexei, but I think you must have misunderstood a fundamental
> detail about what high-level programming languages are meant for.  And
> C++ is just about as high-level as it gets. 

Nope. :) I simply flame because C++ library implementations are different in
different compilers. That's the main problem that makes me angry. I don't
understand why C++ library is standartized so long. Seems people started
inventing it w/o thinking of portability and standards so standard is
released after C++ is out. Or the standard changes all the time itself. :(

> A big part of the game is
> that *not* every programmer re-invents the wheel of how to do I/O on
> his target machine. Without code-reusability (as in: every program can
> use a library of support functionality), software engineering would be
> in even worse a state today than it already is.
> 
> The particular problem with the C++ standard library is that it's
> *huge*, and very hard to implement correctly. Many compiler/library
> implementors are still struggling to get it right.

Sure I don't want to and I won't make a replacement for all the C/C++
library functions. I'm not crazy. :) It's just a humor about using
*standard* things. :)

> > So why should I use C++ library, if it's not standartized?
> 
> It *is* standardized. But most of the compilers haven't implemented
> all of that standard, yet.

Is standard or is <being> standartized? Why so long?

> > Btw, when C++ was invented? How long we have it w/o of standard?
> 
> At least half a decade. Maybe 10 years. To give some numbers:
> Borland's first 'big' C++ compiler, BC++3.1, dates back 1992 or so.
> 
> The key problem is that the definition of the language itself and also
> the library has constantly been changing all the time. It never really
> came to a halt until the ratification of the ISO standard late in
> 1998.  This kept the compiler writers extremely busy all the time if
> they wanted to keep up with the state of the art.
> 
> > size_t is not a problem. Btw, what so I need size_t for, if both size_t and
> > int equal the same machine word?
> 
> *If*. But how on earth is a program supposed to know if that condition
> holds, on the compiler it's being put through?

I don't understand your phrase. Please tell it in other words, if possible.

bye.
Alexei A. Frounze
-----------------------------------------
Homepage: http://alexfru.chat.ru
Mirror:   http://members.xoom.com/alexfru


- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019