Raz wrote:

Please confine your trolling to where it belongs.

--
Ian Collins.

"Raz" <osjdf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:715v141f46a5eg638h45f6tu2pem1hohh1@4ax.com...
>
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:54:37 GMT, Erik Wikströ
>
>>Obviously his knowledge of C++ is not as good as it should be.
>
> As I said, I will find the link again. His knowledge of C++ is just
> fine.
>
> http://www.builderau.com.au/video/so...432924p,00.htm
>
> http://www.builderau.com.au/video/so...432921p,00.htm
>
> So here is an expert of who believes that you don't need C++ to
> program low level. C++ brings extra complexity that is not needed.

[...]

You are not forced to use "all" the features of C++. One could most
certainly use C++ in a kernel. However, I personally would avoid exceptions
and global ctor/dtors like the plague. I also would not use the STL, oh
well...

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:54:37 GMT, Erik Wikströ

>Obviously his knowledge of C++ is not as good as it should be.

As I said, I will find the link again. His knowledge of C++ is just
fine.

http://www.builderau.com.au/video/so...432924p,00.htm

http://www.builderau.com.au/video/so...432921p,00.htm

So here is an expert of who believes that you don't need C++ to
program low level. C++ brings extra complexity that is not needed. C
is #1 language to program in lower level. We can also add that you
don't need C++ to program in higher level either, as you can use
easier and better languages such as C#, Java, Ruby on Ralis, Perl,
Python.

On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:52:48 -0700, <"Razi<lsdop"@gmail.com>> wrote:

> [...]
> In any case, what makes you guys respond to each of my posts with
> one-liner "troll" and "plonk" when you think I am troll?

To emphasize to others that you ARE a troll. The replies aren't for your
benefit. If anything, you make our lives easier when you "plonk" us,
because we can then post messages knowing that there's no chance you'll
actually reply to them.

I see that, having found the C++ and Java newsgroups more and more
resistant to your trolling, you've now started including the C newsgroup.
Fortunately, the more unrelated newsgroups you insist on including in your
posts, the more obvious it is that you're trolling. I'm hopeful that
those in the C newsgroup will more readily realize that you're trolling
and skip the annoying phase of trying to reply seriously only to find out
that serious replies don't have any effect on you.

Of course, the fact that this latest thread has zero to do with Java
programming also s make it more obvious that you're just trolling.
Again, your greed will eventually be your own undoing. Then you'll be
free of your trolling obligations and will be able to go get a life. When
that finally happens, everyone will live happily ever after, yourself
included. Who could ask for a better fairy tale ending?

Pete

On Tue, 06 May 2008 10:27:14 +1200, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Please confine your trolling to where it belongs.

Earlier you claimed I didn't post the sources. Now proof has been
posted, and it's the opinion of experts that you don't need C++ to
program in lower level since C++ just brings extra complexity. C has
always been way ahead of C++ in popularity and usage anyway, all
throughout years. That itself is a solid proof. C++ never did replace
C.

In any case, what makes you guys respond to each of my posts with
one-liner "troll" and "plonk" when you think I am troll? I find it
hilarious, really. I never respond to a troll with a post "troll"
like a bot repeatedly. That's breaking #1 rule of how to deal with a
troll. Could it be that C++ has caused you guys to lose some brain
chips and behave in deranged ways? That's a possibility that can't be
discounted. Perhaps we should a new thread to discuss that topic?

Razi wrote:
> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Please confine your trolling to where it belongs.
>
> Earlier you claimed I didn't post the sources. Now proof has been
> posted, and it's the opinion of experts that you don't need C++
> to program in lower level since C++ just brings extra complexity.
> C has always been way ahead of C++ in popularity and usage anyway,
> all throughout years. That itself is a solid proof. C++ never did
> replace C.
>
> In any case, what makes you guys respond to each of my posts with
> one-liner "troll" and "plonk" when you think I am troll? I find it
> hilarious, really. I never respond to a troll with a post "troll"
> like a bot repeatedly. That's breaking #1 rule of how to deal with
> a troll. Could it be that C++ has caused you guys to lose some
> brain chips and behave in deranged ways? That's a possibility that
> can't be discounted. Perhaps we should a new thread to discuss
> that topic?

Do you realize that you are posting to comp.lang.c, and that your
posts are off-topic there? Simply delete c.l.c from the
distribution.

And try not to change your name etc. between postings.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Razii wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you realize that you are posting to comp.lang.c, and that your
>> posts are off-topic there? Simply delete c.l.c from the
>> distribution.
>
> From now on, all my posts would bee cross posted to comp.lang.c.
> What are you going to do about it? Whine a little more?

PLONK. Bye now.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Mon, 05 May 2008 20:19:18 -0400, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Do you realize that you are posting to comp.lang.c, and that your
>posts are off-topic there? Simply delete c.l.c from the
>distribution.

From now on, all my posts would bee cross posted to comp.lang.c. What
are you going to do about it? Whine a little more?

On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:40:04 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
<NpOeStPeAdM@nnowslpianmk.com> wrote:

>Fortunately, the more unrelated newsgroups you insist on including in your
>posts, the more obvious it is that you're trolling.

I really don't care if people respond to me. I am going to continue
with shootout game for MY OWN pleasure. You are free to ignore it,
whine, and post whatever flame. Of course posting it here makes it
more fun since for some reason, all my threads generate a lot of
responses even whining, like you do, is counted as a response.
Did you know that?

Since someone whined from C newsgroup, from now on I will add that
group to the list of my posts. That group is relevant to topic as far
as I am concerned. We are doing benchmark of different language
implementation, so all languages, including C, is relevant to the
discussion.

Razii wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 20:19:18 -0400, CBFalconer
> <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Do you realize that you are posting to comp.lang.c, and that your
>> posts are off-topic there? Simply delete c.l.c from the
>> distribution.
>
> From now on, all my posts would bee cross posted to comp.lang.c.
> What
> are you going to do about it?

As suggested in your post's headers, I'm going to forward this to
abuse@rr.com . I encourage the rest of you to join me.

On Mon, 5 May 2008 20:51:12 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:

>As suggested in your post's headers, I'm going to forward this to
>abuse@rr.com . I encourage the rest of you to join me.

And now I am using aioe.org .. their email is probably,
abuse@aioe.org , in case you need .

I can continue with next server in the next post if you want me to,
for at least two dozen servers continuously. After that, there is all
too reliable google.

Good luck in your email adventure anyway. There is nothing abusive
about posting benchmarks related to Java, C and C++ on a USENET
newsgroup.

"Chris Thomasson" <cristom@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_eadnWL1xbc8EILVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> "Raz" <osjdf@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:715v141f46a5eg638h45f6tu2pem1hohh1@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:54:37 GMT, Erik Wikströ
>>
>>>Obviously his knowledge of C++ is not as good as it should be.
>>
>> As I said, I will find the link again. His knowledge of C++ is just
>> fine.
>>
>> http://www.builderau.com.au/video/so...432924p,00.htm
>>
>> http://www.builderau.com.au/video/so...432921p,00.htm
>>
>> So here is an expert of who believes that you don't need C++ to
>> program low level. C++ brings extra complexity that is not needed.
>
> [...]
>
> You are not forced to use "all" the features of C++. One could most
> certainly use C++ in a kernel. However, I personally would avoid
> exceptions and global ctor/dtors like the plague. I also would not use the
> STL, oh well...

one has to give up many of the features, and is still faced with many of the
other technical issues, that IMO one is better off just using C...

"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RAQTj.8626$iK6.2156@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Razii wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 20:19:18 -0400, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you realize that you are posting to comp.lang.c, and that your
>>> posts are off-topic there? Simply delete c.l.c from the
>>> distribution.
>>
>> From now on, all my posts would bee cross posted to comp.lang.c. What
>> are you going to do about it?
>
> As suggested in your post's headers, I'm going to forward this to
> abuse@rr.com . I encourage the rest of you to join me.

What I was trying to tell Razii all along is that one can spend about 10-15
minutes creating a _very_ crude general purpose memory allocator in C++ that
can at least "compete" with Java:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....bdc76f9792de1f


JET aside for a moment, one must remember that Java has advantage of using
many tricks in the initial byte-code compilation and/or subsequent JIT
process. Its nice to now that many popular JVM's are still written in C
and/or C++; I am not going to plonk him just yet...

:^/

Razi wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 20:51:12 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As suggested in your post's headers, I'm going to forward this to
>> abuse@rr.com . I encourage the rest of you to join me.
>
> And now I am using aioe.org .. their email is probably,
> abuse@aioe.org , in case you need .
>
> I can continue with next server in the next post if you want me to,
> for at least two dozen servers continuously. After that, there is
> all
> too reliable google.

Why do you need to switch servers so often, if you're not a spammer?

"cr88192" <cr88192@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:51475$481ff7ff$ca83b482$3400@saipan.com...
>
> "Chris Thomasson" <cristom@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_eadnWL1xbc8EILVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> "Raz" <osjdf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:715v141f46a5eg638h45f6tu2pem1hohh1@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:54:37 GMT, Erik Wikströ
>>>
>>>>Obviously his knowledge of C++ is not as good as it should be.
>>>
>>> As I said, I will find the link again. His knowledge of C++ is just
>>> fine.
>>>
>>> http://www.builderau.com.au/video/so...432924p,00.htm
>>>
>>> http://www.builderau.com.au/video/so...432921p,00.htm
>>>
>>> So here is an expert of who believes that you don't need C++ to
>>> program low level. C++ brings extra complexity that is not needed.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> You are not forced to use "all" the features of C++. One could most
>> certainly use C++ in a kernel. However, I personally would avoid
>> exceptions and global ctor/dtors like the plague. I also would not use
>> the STL, oh well...
>
> one has to give up many of the features, and is still faced with many of
> the other technical issues, that IMO one is better off just using C...

Use all POD's, no ctor/dtor/"AUTO-vtable":

struct [kobject_name_POD] {
[state];

void ctor() {
}

void dtor() throw() {
}

[kobject_name_POD_API];
};


Think in terms of:


http://groups.google.com/group/comp....106926ba5db19f

convert that C code into simple C++ interface... POD and ASM can be used in
a Kernel.


Use only explicit C++ POD, __NO__ STL, exceptions, constructor, destructors,
virtual functions, inheritance, whatever... Every object is POD; ctor/dtor
is explicit. POD templates would be allowed. You can still benefit from the
syntax of the language - kernel unfriendly features.

Each POD can be initalized like:

struct Kernel_atomic_word {
atomic_word m_value;


#define KERNEL_ATOMIC_WORD_STATICINIT(mp_value) { \
(mp_value) \
}


void ctor(atomic_word const value) {
m_value = value;
}


void dtor() throw() {}


// fetch-and-add
atomic_word faa_mbacq(atomic_word const addend) throw() {
atomic_word const result = ATOMIC_FAA(&m_value, addend);
MEMBAR_ACQUIRE();
return result;
}

atomic_word faa_mbrel(atomic_word const addend) throw() {
MEMBAR_RELEASE();
return ATOMIC_FAA(&m_value, addend);
}


// swap
atomic_word swp_mbacq(atomic_word const value) throw() {
atomic_word const result = ATOMIC_SWP(&m_value, addend);
MEMBAR_ACQUIRE();
return result;
}

atomic_word swp_mbrel(atomic_word const value) throw() {
MEMBAR_RELEASE();
return ATOMIC_SWP(&m_value, addend);
}
};



Of course, C is nice... See, you can do "crude" OOP in C:'

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....106926ba5db19f


;^)


Humm, well, it every abstract interface has a vtable, yet their all POD...
Humm... Could possibly useful in a Kernel environment.

Indeed...

One can use C/C++ syntax in
(POD+someASM+OOP)-(exceptions+ctor/dtor+virtual_func) in a Kernel...

"Chris Thomasson" <cristom@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:34idnS8osed0ZoLVnZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:RAQTj.8626$iK6.2156@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Razii wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 20:19:18 -0400, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you realize that you are posting to comp.lang.c, and that your
>>>> posts are off-topic there? Simply delete c.l.c from the
>>>> distribution.
>>>
>>> From now on, all my posts would bee cross posted to comp.lang.c. What
>>> are you going to do about it?
>>
>> As suggested in your post's headers, I'm going to forward this to
>> abuse@rr.com . I encourage the rest of you to join me.
>
> What I was trying to tell Razii all along is that one can spend about
> 10-15 minutes creating a _very_ crude general purpose memory allocator in
> C++ that can at least "compete" with Java:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp....bdc76f9792de1f

[...]

Oh yeah, region allocator in C is simple:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....f65273b09b4229

Razii <hjgj@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 23:37:03 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Why do you need to switch servers so often, if you're not a spammer?
>
> I switched servers to make a point.
[snip]

Ok, you've made your point. You can post anything you like to
unmoderated newsgroups, and nobody can stop you.

We already knew that.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Keith Thompson wrote:

> Razii <hjgj@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, 5 May 2008 23:37:03 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
>> <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Why do you need to switch servers so often, if you're not a spammer?
>>
>> I switched servers to make a point.
> [snip]
>
> Ok, you've made your point. You can post anything you like to
> unmoderated newsgroups, and nobody can stop you.
>
> We already knew that.

Well, the news servers *can* stop him. A tiny little filter is all that
it takes, to be updated whenever he switches identity. But frankly,
end-user killfilling is better for small-time annoyances like him.

Raz wrote:

> So here is an expert of who believes that you don't need C++ to
> program low level. C++ brings extra complexity that is not needed. C
> is #1 language to program in lower level. We can also add that you
> don't need C++ to program in higher level either, as you can use
> easier and better languages such as C#, Java, Ruby on Ralis, Perl,
> Python.

I chose to learn C++ because of the options it provides... the
complexity that you refer to. I can do old-fashioned C, OOP, sequential,
functional, etc. I can do char arrays or use strings. I'm proficient in
Python and Ruby and I like them very much, but there are times when I
need native, compiled code for performance and efficiency reasons...
when that happens I normally use C++ in a C like manner. C++ does not
force me into a certain programming paradigm. That's what I like most
about it. I don't think it is a better C, IMO it's C with more
options... use them if you like, but you don't have to... and if you do
not need the additional options, then just stick with C. They are so
similar that it's not really worth arguing about.

Just my 2 cents,

Brad

brad wrote:
>
> I chose to learn C++ because of the options it provides... the
> complexity that you refer to. I can do old-fashioned C, OOP,
> sequential, functional, etc. I can do char arrays or use strings.
> I'm
> proficient in Python and Ruby and I like them very much, but there
> are times when I need native, compiled code for performance and
> efficiency reasons... when that happens I normally use C++ in a C
> like manner. C++ does not force me into a certain programming
> paradigm. That's what I like most about it. I don't think it is a
> better C, IMO it's C with more options... use them if you like, but
> you don't have to... and if you do not need the additional options,
> then just stick with C. They are so similar that it's not really
> worth arguing about.

Note that function prototypes, which were a significant hole in C's
strong typing [1], originated with C++.

Hypothetically, if I were going to program in C++-like C, I'd still
use classes to provide data-hiding and encapsulation, but I'd do
without (at least)

* operator overloading
* virtual functions
* virtual base classes
* templates

Am I leaving anything out?

1. This isn't just a theoretical opinion. I used to work on a very
large suite of C applications, and invalid parameter types were a
common source of errors, particularly where they were "close enough"
on the platform we were developing on, but not on some of the ones we
ported to.

On Tue, 06 May 2008 00:55:40 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
wrote:

>We already knew that.

Who is "We"? I wasn't talking to you. The person I responded to didn't
know that.

On May 6, 12:46 am, "Chris Thomasson" <cris...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Raz" <os...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:715v141f46a5eg638h45f6tu2pem1hohh1@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:54:37 GMT, Erik Wikströ

> >>Obviously his knowledge of C++ is not as good as it should be.

> > As I said, I will find the link again. His knowledge of C++
> > is just fine.

> >http://www.builderau.com.au/video/so...o-C-programmer...

> >http://www.builderau.com.au/video/so...evant/0,200006...

> > So here is an expert of who believes that you don't need C++ to
> > program low level. C++ brings extra complexity that is not needed.

> [...]

> You are not forced to use "all" the features of C++. One could
> most certainly use C++ in a kernel. However, I personally
> would avoid exceptions and global ctor/dtors like the plague.
> I also would not use the STL, oh well...

I'm not sure what you mean by "global ctor/dtors". You probably
cannot count on dynamic initialization of variables with static
lifetime, for obvious reasons, but there's certainly no reason
not to use (and a lot of reasons for using) user defined
constructors and destructors on local objects.

FWIW: Chorus was written entirely in C++ (except for the
unavoidable little bits of assembler), and that was almost 20
years ago. (Chorus was later bought by Sun, and most of its
features worked their way into Solaris, so I suspect that large
parts of Solaris are written in C++ today.)

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

"James Kanze" <james.kanze@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:930a9325-6d39-4c58-be22-d21cd8545e9c@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 6, 12:46 am, "Chris Thomasson" <cris...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "Raz" <os...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:715v141f46a5eg638h45f6tu2pem1hohh1@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:54:37 GMT, Erik Wikströ

> > >>Obviously his knowledge of C++ is not as good as it should be.

> > > As I said, I will find the link again. His knowledge of C++
> > > is just fine.

> > >http://www.builderau.com.au/video/so...o-C-programmer...

> > >http://www.builderau.com.au/video/so...evant/0,200006...

> > > So here is an expert of who believes that you don't need C++ to
> > > program low level. C++ brings extra complexity that is not needed.

> > [...]

> > You are not forced to use "all" the features of C++. One could
> > most certainly use C++ in a kernel. However, I personally
> > would avoid exceptions and global ctor/dtors like the plague.
> > I also would not use the STL, oh well...

> I'm not sure what you mean by "global ctor/dtors". You probably
> cannot count on dynamic initialization of variables with static
> lifetime, for obvious reasons, but there's certainly no reason
> not to use (and a lot of reasons for using) user defined
> constructors and destructors on local objects.

Yeah, your right. However, I did not use them out of habit back when I was
working on a toy x86 kernel implementation. Some objects may need to
interface with assembly language. I personally find that using POD makes can
make that process a bit easier...




> FWIW: Chorus was written entirely in C++ (except for the
> unavoidable little bits of assembler), and that was almost 20
> years ago. (Chorus was later bought by Sun, and most of its
> features worked their way into Solaris, so I suspect that large
> parts of Solaris are written in C++ today.)

Indeed.

On May 7, 10:30 pm, "Chris Thomasson" <cris...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "James Kanze" <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:930a9325-6d39-4c58-be22-d21cd8545e9c@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

[...]
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "global ctor/dtors". You probably
> > cannot count on dynamic initialization of variables with static
> > lifetime, for obvious reasons, but there's certainly no reason
> > not to use (and a lot of reasons for using) user defined
> > constructors and destructors on local objects.

> Yeah, your right. However, I did not use them out of habit
> back when I was working on a toy x86 kernel implementation.
> Some objects may need to interface with assembly language. I
> personally find that using POD makes can make that process a
> bit easier...

Interfacing with assembler is another theme. Throw in some
privates and publics, virtual functions and a bit of
inheritance, and figuring out the layout in assembler isn't
going to be trivial. I've never found a compiler where just
adding a constructor or destructor to what would otherwise be a
POD changed the layout in anyway, however. (On the other hand,
whatever reasons made you want a destructor could very well
impact on how you use the class in assembler. Interfacing with
assembler is one place where char[] beats std::string hands
down.)

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34