 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'd say that Perl is like
>
> PHP is exactly this, yes.
Oh dears.
>> I'm not familiar with Ruby, Scheme, or Mozart. Of course I've heard of
>> all these things, but I don't know anything about them. (I started
>> reading a Ruby tutorial, but the random inconsistant syntax put me
>> off. And the ham.)
>
> Yep. And the fact that the guy who wrote the most definitive texts
> doesn't actually know what the language does. (At several points in the
> Axe book, the author says "It seems to do this" or "it apparently does
> that.") And the fact that between minor version 18 and minor version 19
> they made a bunch of unneccesary and seemingly trivial changes to
> defaults that would nevertheless break any program that relied on those
> defaults. Those are the main reasons I never really pursued it.
Yes.
And the thing with the ham...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> Makes sense. I think the runtime code generation was what I was
>> particularly interested in,
>
> Huh. That's one part I don't think changed that much.
It's also entirely possible that I'm remembering
incorrectly/incompletely here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
>
> Coding in SNOBOL is like writing a phone book because... well, because that
> was all it was ever used for.
>
Wow, it's not often I hear that language mentioned. Apparently it was
also somewhat popular with people in non-technical academic fields since
they found the string processing capabilities useful.
One of these days I'm going to learn it just because I'm curious about
it, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > Still, at least it's better than C.
> Well, it's better than C for experts. For newbies, I think C is probably
> easier, since there's less magic going on you need to know.
You mean newbies don't need to handle dynamically allocated memory?
Exactly which part of C is simpler for newbies than C++?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Still, at least it's better than C.
>
>> Well, it's better than C for experts. For newbies, I think C is probably
>> easier, since there's less magic going on you need to know.
>
> You mean newbies don't need to handle dynamically allocated memory?
>
> Exactly which part of C is simpler for newbies than C++?
Simpler /= easier. ;-)
(If anybody out there still thinks simple and easy are in any way
correlated, try learning the Waltz. It has THREE STEPS IN IT, and yet
nobody can do it right for at least the first 20 minutes.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>>> Makes sense. I think the runtime code generation was what I was
>>> particularly interested in,
>>
>> Huh. That's one part I don't think changed that much.
>
> It's also entirely possible that I'm remembering
> incorrectly/incompletely here.
It *is* relatively primitive. But then, you *are* creating essentially
machine code. :-) I just don't remember hearing of any significant changes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Exactly which part of C is simpler for newbies than C++?
You don't have to deal with constructors, destructors, exceptions, the
difference between casing classes and casting pointers to classes, etc.
It's simpler *because* it's less powerful, in the same way that using an axe
is simpler for newbies than using a chainsaw.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> One of these days I'm going to learn it just because I'm curious about
> it, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
It's sort of like Perl, only more ... tabular, somehow. People don't use it
any more because computers are powerful enough to run things like Perl now.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Exactly which part of C is simpler for newbies than C++?
> You don't have to deal with constructors, destructors, exceptions, the
> difference between casing classes and casting pointers to classes, etc.
Why would a beginner need to deal with constructors, destructors,
exceptions and the like?
> It's simpler *because* it's less powerful, in the same way that using an axe
> is simpler for newbies than using a chainsaw.
No, C is a lot more complicated for the beginner precisely because it's
less powerful.
In C++ the beginner can write things like this:
std::string concatenate(const std::vector<std::string>& strings)
{
std::string result:
for(int i = 0; i < strings.size(); ++i)
result += strings[i];
return result;
}
Show me the same function implemented in C and explain how it would be
easier for a beginner (especially without any danger of memory leaks).
And here I didn't even get to the things that the C standard library
doesn't support.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> One of these days I'm going to learn it just because I'm curious about
>> it, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
>
> It's sort of like Perl, only more ... tabular, somehow. People don't use
> it any more because computers are powerful enough to run things like
> Perl now.
>
As I understand it's pattern matching uses a recursive backtracking
algorithm, which should give it a bit of a Prolog flavor too. This
seems distinct from the Perl way of doing things (although historically
the latter seems to won out as being more useful in practice).
Not that I know SNOBOL or Perl mind you, so I'm talking based mostly on
my impressions of Icon and Ruby respectively plus a bit of extra reading.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
