From: "Alexei A. Frounze" 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: <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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 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 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