473,854 Members | 1,823 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Boost process and C

Hi,

Is there any group in the manner of the C++ Boost group that works on
the evolution of the C language? Or is there any group that performs an
equivalent function?

Thanks,
-vs

Apr 29 '06
335 11964
Bill Pursell a écrit :
jacob navia wrote:
Bill Pursell a écrit :
As I said, I'm not suggesting that the basic arithmetic operators be
removed from the language, and this is an excellent example of their
utility. Can you come up with a similar example that doesn't rely on
fundamenta l types? I've never seen an object in any language that was
prone to this type of calculation, and certainly never seen a structure
in a C program to which this would apply. Any such calculation should
be performed by a function anyway, so rather than forcing the
maintenanc e programmer to parse:
z = sqrt((a+b)/(b-d) +0.5*d/(a*d-b*d);
that same programmer would have to parse:
z = determinant( A);
or the like.

lcc-win32 offers qfloats, 350 bit floating pint. Those numbers are easy
to use. To change your precision from double (64 bits) to qfloat (350
bits) you just #define double qfloat and do not have to change anything
in the code. That's the point of all this stuff. Numerical formulae and
computation s remain the same even if the precision of the computations
goes up.



If the 350 bit floating point type is a data structure that is known to
the compiler, it seems that it's not really a user defined type.


No, it is a user defined type, using operator overloading precisely.

The compiler acepts it in two ways special ways though:

1) Constants:

qfloat pi = 3.1415926535897 932384626433832 795028841971693 9Q

I have not had the time to define this as a user defined function.

It could be done if I would implement something like

#pragma number_suffix(q float,'Q',ascto qfloat)

i.e. if I would allow the user to implement an association between a
numeric suffix (in this case 'Q') to a function (that should be
implemented in a dll or in some way accessible to the compiler at
compile time). I am planning to do this this sommer, when I will review
the whole implementation of operator overloading in lcc-win32
I think my concern is that I've seen a lot of horribly written C++
code, and slightly less bad C, and it seems that allowing operator
overloading will just increase the amount of bad C code that's out
there.


Yes, the danger is clear, it can be misused. But *anything* can be misused.

Apr 30 '06 #61
Chris Hills wrote:
.... snip ...
Distribution was discussed last week. I think the suite should
be widely available for both tool vendors and users. We looked at
a check summed distribution so that you know you have a valid
(and not edited) suite.


This requires all of a md5sum check file and zip the whole mess
into a single zip.

--
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad
morals. We now know that it is bad economics" - FDR
Apr 30 '06 #62
In article <44************ ***@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yah oo.com> writes
Chris Hills wrote:

... snip ...

Distribution was discussed last week. I think the suite should
be widely available for both tool vendors and users. We looked at
a check summed distribution so that you know you have a valid
(and not edited) suite.


This requires all of a md5sum check file and zip the whole mess
into a single zip.


Yes. I know. It is one of several options we are looking at.
However there are problems with using this system.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Apr 30 '06 #63
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:18:12 UTC, jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr>
wrote:

The problem is that instead of getting away from strings as zero
terminated array of characters they STILL hang to it. THEN all functions
must be explicitely be given the length of the strings/buffers/etc even
if it is immediately obvious that the programmer can't know in all cases
what that dammed length is nor should he care!

typedef struct _string {
size_t length;
char *Stringdata
} String;
When you nneds a string that knows its length you should use pascal.
It does this by design.

When you needs operator overloading and other OO specific things use
C++. It is designed for that. There is no need for that crap in C.
is too much for the C standards comitee. This structure is split then at
each function call in a data and a length, and it is up to the
programmer to figure out the length without ever making an error.
You proves simply that you knows nothing, abnsolutely nothing about
compilers and theyr design.
I have proposed (and implemented) a demonstration how could that be
done. See the string library of lcc-win32.
That means one has to avoid lcc-win32 because its crap.
Because everyone agrees that C is dead and should NOT be developed any
further. It should be left for embedded systems with small RAM footprint
where C++ can never run.
Now you're gets megalomaniac. You are not everyone, you are either o
nly another alias of Twitsdale or his brother, knowing nothing about
C. There are currently written more programs in C than in any other
languages together.
As the hardware evolves and even small gadgets feature megabytes of RAM
those niche applications will be more and more difficult to find.
Niche? Windows is only one little niche in the aspect of the number of
different programs programmed in C today, not counted the maintenance,
new developement that gots out the factories dayly. You're really only
an alias of Twitsdale or Schellong knowing nothing abaout reality.
The people in this newsgroup who have imposed their will that this
newgroup simply not discuss this issue are part of the problem of
course.
Of course, but they willl not agree with this, obviously. They are still
in C89 and the few points that C99 brought in the sense of a better
language are just denied. Each time I remind people about them, they
tell me that "not all compilers support C99" what is true but doesn't
make things advance at all.


Speaks Twitsdale.
If there is no clear place where the evolution of C can be
discussed, then it won't be, and C will not evolve.
Yes, and that is why I still try to discuss serious perspectives in this
group. Maybe because lcc-win32 is the only compiler system that is
centered around C and it is not just a C++ compiler that can also do
some C compilations.


Says a twit who has no knowledge about the real world.

Yes, but the problem is that in the C standards comitee most people care
much more about C++ than C. There is no compiler for C today. All are
C++ compilers that can do C as an after thought. Gcc has implemented
most of the standard but still never makes it to finish it.
And again you proves that you has absolutely no idea to the real
world.
Microsoft doesn't care at all, and pursues its own standards through the
windows platform, where it can dictate whatever it wishes.

Apple has got objective C, and sticks to it.

-------------------------

Still, C has a big potential of growth with some minor additions like
operator overloading, something that is accepted by more conservative
languages like fortran for instance.
Whjen you needs it you would know which language serves that to you. C
has no need for that.
This small change would make possible to write good string libraries,
good numerical libraries, etc.
When you are unhappy with C got to C++ for object oriented language,
pascal for pecaluar string libraries not even C++ owns by standard but
don't think that changing the features C owns are a good idea.
Another feature is the overloaded functions feature that could allow a
limited amount of generic programming.
Why does you whine about missing OO features the OO language C++ gives
you for free already? It seems you are too kimited in brain to get
that C is not an OO language and never will be.
And that is all. Small but essential changes that would make C a very
good language without loosing the simplicity, what is its greatest
asset. The problem of C++'s complexity is known. C with those minor
modifications would be a very useful language.


You are really an alias of Twitsdale.

--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2 Deutsch ist da!
Apr 30 '06 #64
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:05:21 UTC, jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr>
wrote:
Ian Collins a écrit :
jacob navia wrote:
Because everyone agrees that C is dead and should NOT be developed any
further. It should be left for embedded systems with small RAM footprint
where C++ can never run.

C isn't dead, it's mature, there is a difference.

Still, C has a big potential of growth with some minor additions like
operator overloading, something that is accepted by more conservative
languages like fortran for instance.


If you want overloading, use C++.


Why?

Why should I swallow that big fat language?

I just want a few specific features that are part of many programming
languages, from fortran to visual basic...


Then use fortran and its not available operator overloading, its
ackwards string handling. As you says it gives what you asks for why
does you don't use it.
Operator overloading is a well known technique, no need to swallow
all C++ to get it. Thank you
Yes but without all the other well known object oriented techniques
C++ owns already it is completely ueseless. So again, use fortran when
you means that this language gives you what you miss in C or simply
use C++ as it owns already the ability to use operator overloading.ö C
has no need for that.

This small change would make possible to write good string libraries,
good numerical libraries, etc.

Another feature is the overloaded functions feature that could allow a
limited amount of generic programming.


Same here, these features exist elsewhere, if you want them, go there.


Same thing. Why take all that machinery when it is not needed?


It is YOU who says that an programming language that does not need it
has to give it to you. As C++ gives you what you needs you should use
it instead of a language that is not designed to produce it.

The problem with ultra FAT languages like C++ is their incredible
complexity!

Constructors and destructors?

Who needs them?
YOU, because you needs operator overloading, that requires constuctors
to define the operators to overload and destructors to undefine them.
Just get a sensible garbage collector and be done with the need for them.
Java gives you that. Use Java or C++ if you needs it. I found already
out that onloy trolls, twits and mental amputated peoples who are
unable to write a simple "hello world" C program have a real need for
GC.
Object oriented programming can be nice in *some* situations but why
should it be FORCED into everyone?


Again C++ is the right way for you as it gives you all and anything
you asks for. You will be able to ignopre any OO capabilities of C++
but then you will ignore ooperator overloading too. You cries for a C
that does exactly what C++ does already. You are a twit.

--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2 Deutsch ist da!
Apr 30 '06 #65
I am impressed by the depth of your argumentation.

You must be a brilliant person really

:-)

Apr 30 '06 #66
ex************* *@gmail.com wrote:
About libclc - how is that doing? It seems to have just dried up
without notice.

If a C programmer is writing a reasonably large program these days,
what are the first libraries that are commonly used for collections of
data structures, better strings, etc?


Well, I know that "better strings" are somewhere on that list for a lot
of people, if the periodic requests for feature improvements for
Bstrlib from people starting new projects are any indication.

--
Paul Hsieh
http://www.pobox.com/~qed/
http://bstring.sf.net/

Apr 30 '06 #67
Herbert Rosenau wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> wrote:
.... snip ...
Another feature is the overloaded functions feature that could
allow a limited amount of generic programming.


Why does you whine about missing OO features the OO language C++
gives you for free already? It seems you are too kimited in brain
to get that C is not an OO language and never will be.
And that is all. Small but essential changes that would make C
a very good language without loosing the simplicity, what is its
greatest asset. The problem of C++'s complexity is known. C with
those minor modifications would be a very useful language.


You are really an alias of Twitsdale.


Back in the last century I downloaded, and actually used, Navia's
system. I wondered at the time why it never showed up in the
recommended list of C systems for the x86, since it seemed fairly
usable after disabling some of the outre monstrosities (such as GC,
overloading, etc.) and it was fairly handy to be able to flip into
a debugger instantaneously .

Then I observed various things. For one, it depended on the
brain-dead Microsoft C dll and didn't create proper independent
modules. There was never any indication of revision levels, except
that suddenly the debugger no longer worked at all, it just crashed
immediately (it apparently suddenly used Pentium only instructions,
without bothering to check what it was running on). The total lack
of regression checks had led to this, and the various brand new
bugs reported on the lcc newsgroup confirmed the lack of testing.
At the time I reported it, and there was no effort to repair it.

It is probably all very well for someone willing to use Beta (at
best) software, but it is certainly not recommended. I think it
has done much harm to the reputation of the reputedly accurate LCC
compiler (which is not limited to Windoze use).

My conclusions: Lcc-win32 allows you to test Beta software, with
the advantage of easily creating totally non-portable off-beat
source which is useless elsewhere. Some sort of exercise in
masochism. I have kept these conclusions more or less to myself
for some time, but Navia's insistence on posting silly off-topic
material here and insulting those who object has aroused my ire.
His recent citing of Trollsdale as an authority goes beyond any
pale.

--
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad
morals. We now know that it is bad economics" - FDR
Apr 30 '06 #68
CBFalconer a écrit :
Back in the last century I downloaded, and actually used, Navia's
system. I wondered at the time why it never showed up in the
recommended list of C systems for the x86, since it seemed fairly
usable after disabling some of the outre monstrosities (such as GC,
overloading, etc.) and it was fairly handy to be able to flip into
a debugger instantaneously .

Then I observed various things. For one, it depended on the
brain-dead Microsoft C dll and didn't create proper independent
modules.
This is no longer the case. It costed me years of development to do
that. Writing a C library from scratch is not something you do so
easily, unles your name is Chuck Falconer of course. Normal guys like me
take years.

This is hard to understand, specially for genius types of guys like Chuck.
There was never any indication of revision levels, except
that suddenly the debugger no longer worked at all, it just crashed
immediately (it apparently suddenly used Pentium only instructions,
without bothering to check what it was running on).
Mr Falconer insisted that I keep lcc-win32 compatible with his 486
system. I refused without a maintenance contract, and he did not forgive
me that to this day.

So is life :-)
The total lack
of regression checks had led to this, and the various brand new
bugs reported on the lcc newsgroup confirmed the lack of testing.
At the time I reported it, and there was no effort to repair it.

Not even that. I told him that I would not even look into it without a
fair payment. Why should I work for him for free? He was the only one
using a 486 that I have ever heard of.
It is probably all very well for someone willing to use Beta (at
best) software, but it is certainly not recommended. I think it
has done much harm to the reputation of the reputedly accurate LCC
compiler (which is not limited to Windoze use).

My conclusions: Lcc-win32 allows you to test Beta software, with
the advantage of easily creating totally non-portable off-beat
source which is useless elsewhere. Some sort of exercise in
masochism. I have kept these conclusions more or less to myself
for some time, but Navia's insistence on posting silly off-topic
material here and insulting those who object has aroused my ire.
Wow, I am impressed. I will commit suicide shortly.
His recent citing of Trollsdale as an authority goes beyond any
pale.


Maybe you should cite the context too?

I did not cite him as an authority but as a representative of a view
that is always repeated here:

C++ is the future, C is the past. If you want any improvement to C just
use C++.
Apr 30 '06 #69
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> writes:
ex************* *@gmail.com a écrit :
About libclc - how is that doing? It seems to have just dried up
without notice.
If a C programmer is writing a reasonably large program these days,
what are the first libraries that are commonly used for collections of
data structures, better strings, etc?
Nowhere. Since the C standard comitee refuses to improve the language,
there are a lot of libraries but all of them incompatible.


Perhaps I should have pointed out that, although comp.std.c is the
best newsgroup to discuss changes to the C standard, there's no
guarantee that anyone will actually like your idea, and nobody has any
obligation to discuss it.
Basically, the opinion here is that data structures are too much of an
intellectual effort for C programmers... :-)


Adding a smiley to a pointless insult doesn't make it any less
insulting.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Apr 30 '06 #70

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

65
5408
by: perseus | last post by:
I think that everyone who told me that my question is irrelevant, in particular Mr. David White, is being absolutely ridiculous. Obviously, most of you up here behave like the owners of the C++ language. A C++ interface installation IS ABOUT THE C++ LANGUAGE! The language does not possess the ability to handle even simple file directory manipulation. Those wise people that created it did not take care of it. So, BOOST is a portable...
205
10771
by: Jeremy Siek | last post by:
CALL FOR PAPERS/PARTICIPATION C++, Boost, and the Future of C++ Libraries Workshop at OOPSLA October 24-28, 2004 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada http://tinyurl.com/4n5pf Submissions
17
1906
by: Howard Gardner | last post by:
/* If I am using boost, then how should I write this program? As it sits, this program is using SFINAE to determine whether or not a type supports particular syntax. I suspect that there is functionality in boost to do this. I have found mpl::has_xxx, which I suspect of being part of the solution. I've also found type_traits::has_nothrow_constructor
2
6636
by: smith4894 | last post by:
{ not sure you're aware of that but there are the newsgroups for all major operating systems. you might want to try asking in the forum 'comp.os.linux.development.apps', since memory-mapped files are not a language-supported structure, they are platform-specific. -mod } I'm trying to use boost serialization to serialize/deserialize data to and from a mmap'd file. I have my own ostream/istream classes that essentially read/write bytes...
5
2400
by: linyanhung | last post by:
I used a boost multi thread in VS 2005 on a Duo Core PC, and made a two thread process. The code is something like this: #include <boost/thread/thread.hpp> void fun1() { //do something
8
6216
by: Matt England | last post by:
My team currently using Boost Threads, but we are considering switching to ZThreads. (We seek cross-platform, C++ multithreading capabilities in an external library.) ZThread(s): http://zthread.sourceforge.net/ http://www.inf.uni-konstanz.de/dbis/members/vinnik/zsim/doc/ Can anyone share their ZThreads experience, either good, bad, or
2
2417
by: ironpingwin | last post by:
Hi! I'd like to make few threads which will run in the same time in C++. I try to use boost library v 1.34.1 (it can't be newest, because I compile on remote machine, which is not administrated by me). In this version there isn't detach() function. How to run functions from two different class in the same time?
13
4542
by: brad | last post by:
Still learning C++. I'm writing some regex using boost. It works great. Only thing is... this code seems slow to me compared to equivelent Perl and Python. I'm sure I'm doing something incorrect. Any tips? #include <boost/regex.hpp> #include <iostream> // g++ numbers.cpp -o numbers -I/usr/local/include/boost-1_35 /usr/local/lib/libboost_regex-gcc41-mt-s.a // g++ numbers.cpp -o numbers.exe
5
3596
by: ameyav | last post by:
Hi All, I am converting some C code into C++ code. The objective is to improve throughput. I have some code written in C which serially parses through a list of files, opens each one of them, processes the data and closes the file. All the files are processed one by one. The obvious performance bottleneck that i could think of is the wasted cpu cycles for file i/o. *My solution* was to spawn multiple threads to do the file i/o. For...
0
9901
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look ! Part I. Meaning of...
0
9752
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
11031
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. Here is my compilation command: g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp Here is the code in...
0
9518
agi2029
by: agi2029 | last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
0
7082
by: conductexam | last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one. At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image. Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
0
5750
by: TSSRALBI | last post by:
Hello I'm a network technician in training and I need your help. I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs. The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols. I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
1
4563
by: 6302768590 | last post by:
Hai team i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
2
4162
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
3
3188
bsmnconsultancy
by: bsmnconsultancy | last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.