What I like most about C++

[JohnQ]

Is that I can approximate using my ideal of a language in it. On the flip
side, what I dislike most about it is all the
flak/protecting-the-golden-calf one gets when using it that way.

I think a lot of the template discussions are like talking about .net or
similar and that brain power is being wasted along with progress. For
instance, when I see examples given in solution of a problem and then I see
that the code is template-based, I ignore it.

I have a good analogy of how templates strike me (read, "the flavor of
templates"): Remember when Indy car racing was turbo charged? Yeah, all the
development was going into turbos instead of engines. I think templates are
having similar effect on C++. Give me well-designed naturally aspirated
instead of
exploding/heat-producing/back-pressure-producing/complexity-introducing
turbos any day!

John

[Me]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 03:56:16 +0000, Noone wrote:

Is that I can approximate using my ideal of a language in it. On the
flip side, what I dislike most about it is all the
flak/protecting-the-golden-calf one gets when using it that way.

Use it whatever way works for YOU. Just keep in mind that modern
programming paradigms are suppose to encourage code being easily
supported by others and being reusable.

I think a lot of the template discussions are like talking about .net or
similar and that brain power is being wasted along with progress. For
instance, when I see examples given in solution of a problem and then I
see that the code is template-based, I ignore it.

Just my humble opinion, but if you ignore template based code out of hand
then you are not fully appreciating the strength of the language.

I have a good analogy of how templates strike me (read, "the flavor of
templates"):

Vanilla, as they should be...

Remember when Indy car racing was turbo charged? Yeah, all
the development was going into turbos instead of engines. I think
templates are having similar effect on C++. Give me well-designed
naturally aspirated instead of
exploding/heat-producing/back-pressure-producing/complexity-introducing
turbos any day!

If c++ didn't have template capabilities then my current project would be
six or seven times as large as it needs to be because of all the custom
operations I would have to reimplement for specific data types.

stack<stringsta ck_of_strings;
vector<floatsom e_floats;
class my_class;
map<int, my_classmy_map;

Now think about all the code writing I saved instead of having to
implement each of the above for each specific data type I wanted to
collect. Not to mention, string is itself a template class. Are you
saying that you won't use the string class because it is implemented using
templates?

This is stuff that colleges should be giving students an appreciation
for. If they aren't then the schools are not doing their job.
My appologies to the regulars for not resisting feeding of the trolls. :^)

[Ian Collins]

JohnQ wrote:

Is that I can approximate using my ideal of a language in it. On the flip
side, what I dislike most about it is all the
flak/protecting-the-golden-calf one gets when using it that way.

Your trolls are becoming tedious.

--
Ian Collins.

[Salt_Peter]

On May 23, 11:56 pm, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.com>
wrote:

Is that I can approximate using my ideal of a language in it. On the flip
side, what I dislike most about it is all the
flak/protecting-the-golden-calf one gets when using it that way.

I think a lot of the template discussions are like talking about .net or
similar and that brain power is being wasted along with progress. For
instance, when I see examples given in solution of a problem and then I see
that the code is template-based, I ignore it.

I have a good analogy of how templates strike me (read, "the flavor of
templates"): Remember when Indy car racing was turbo charged? Yeah, all the
development was going into turbos instead of engines. I think templates are
having similar effect on C++. Give me well-designed naturally aspirated
instead of
exploding/heat-producing/back-pressure-producing/complexity-introducing
turbos any day!

John

Nobody forces you to templatize anything or everything.
I fail to see what you find turbo-ish about templates. They are
relatively simple and a tiny effort affords you many, many dividends.
It just doesn't make sense to redesign a car from scratch just cause
you changed the fuel or the race has new specs. Thats folly.

A wheel is a wheel, whether aluminum or some other alloy is involved,
its still a wheel.
If the design changes, its still a wheel.
If its profile changes, its still a wheel.
Now lets suppose you have 100 materials, 10 profiles and 700
designs...

Is your arguement that the effort of writing 700,000 wheel structures
doesn't beg for a template?
How many more materials, profiles and designs will be added tommorrow?
After all, thats the ultimate goal of a template.
It works with anything, including what doesn't exist yet.

[JohnQ]

"Me" <no***@all.comw rote in message
news:pa******** *************@a ll.com...

On Thu, 24 May 2007 03:56:16 +0000, Noone wrote:

>Is that I can approximate using my ideal of a language in it. On the
flip side, what I dislike most about it is all the
flak/protecting-the-golden-calf one gets when using it that way.

Use it whatever way works for YOU. Just keep in mind that modern
programming paradigms are suppose to encourage code being easily
supported by others and being reusable.

>I think a lot of the template discussions are like talking about .net or
similar and that brain power is being wasted along with progress. For
instance, when I see examples given in solution of a problem and then I
see that the code is template-based, I ignore it.

Just my humble opinion, but if you ignore template based code out of hand
then you are not fully appreciating the strength of the language.

>I have a good analogy of how templates strike me (read, "the flavor of
templates"):

Vanilla, as they should be...

>Remember when Indy car racing was turbo charged? Yeah, all
the development was going into turbos instead of engines. I think
templates are having similar effect on C++. Give me well-designed
naturally aspirated instead of
exploding/heat-producing/back-pressure-producing/complexity-introducing
turbos any day!

If c++ didn't have template capabilities then my current project would be
six or seven times as large as it needs to be because of all the custom
operations I would have to reimplement for specific data types.

stack<stringsta ck_of_strings;
vector<floatsom e_floats;
class my_class;
map<int, my_classmy_map;

Now think about all the code writing I saved instead of having to
implement each of the above for each specific data type I wanted to
collect. Not to mention, string is itself a template class. Are you
saying that you won't use the string class because it is implemented using
templates?

This is stuff that colleges should be giving students an appreciation
for. If they aren't then the schools are not doing their job.

Templates are fine for containers and algorithms, but I like to keep them
for that only.

John

[JohnQ]

"Salt_Peter " <pj*****@yahoo. comwrote in message
news:11******** *************@o 5g2000hsb.googl egroups.com...

On May 23, 11:56 pm, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.com>
wrote:

>Is that I can approximate using my ideal of a language in it. On the flip
side, what I dislike most about it is all the
flak/protecting-the-golden-calf one gets when using it that way.

I think a lot of the template discussions are like talking about .net or
similar and that brain power is being wasted along with progress. For
instance, when I see examples given in solution of a problem and then I
see
that the code is template-based, I ignore it.

I have a good analogy of how templates strike me (read, "the flavor of
templates"): Remember when Indy car racing was turbo charged? Yeah, all
the
development was going into turbos instead of engines. I think templates
are
having similar effect on C++. Give me well-designed naturally aspirated
instead of
exploding/heat-producing/back-pressure-producing/complexity-introducing
turbos any day!

John

Nobody forces you to templatize anything or everything.
I fail to see what you find turbo-ish about templates.

Too much emphasis on them.

John

[JohnQ]

"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotma il.comwrote in message
news:5b******** *****@mid.indiv idual.net...

JohnQ wrote:

>Is that I can approximate using my ideal of a language in it. On the flip
side, what I dislike most about it is all the
flak/protecting-the-golden-calf one gets when using it that way.

Your trolls are becoming tedious.

If you don't like out-of-the-box thinking, don't read my posts

John

[MathStuf]

On May 24, 10:21 pm, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.com>
wrote:

"Salt_Peter " <pj_h...@yahoo. comwrote in message

news:11******** *************@o 5g2000hsb.googl egroups.com...

On May 23, 11:56 pm, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.com>
wrote:

Is that I can approximate using my ideal of a language in it. On the flip
side, what I dislike most about it is all the
flak/protecting-the-golden-calf one gets when using it that way.

I think a lot of the template discussions are like talking about .net or
similar and that brain power is being wasted along with progress. For
instance, when I see examples given in solution of a problem and then I
see
that the code is template-based, I ignore it.

I have a good analogy of how templates strike me (read, "the flavor of
templates"): Remember when Indy car racing was turbo charged? Yeah, all
the
development was going into turbos instead of engines. I think templates
are
having similar effect on C++. Give me well-designed naturally aspirated
instead of
exploding/heat-producing/back-pressure-producing/complexity-introducing
turbos any day!

John

Nobody forces you to templatize anything or everything.
I fail to see what you find turbo-ish about templates.

Too much emphasis on them.

John

So ignore it. If someone wants to write their own code using
templates, let them, but don't think that because YOU don't like/use a
feature of a language, that it should be banished from the language.

--MathStuf

[James Kanze]

On May 25, 4:21 am, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.com>
wrote:

"Me" <[e-mail] ote in message

Templates are fine for containers and algorithms, but I like
to keep them for that only.

And smart pointers, and any number of other things.

They're a tool. Use them when they make the code more readable
and easier to maintain. I avoid them when they make the code
less readable and harder to maintain. Having used C++ before
templates (and having written containers and smart pointers
using <generic.h>), I certainly don't want to go back.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[Lionel B]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 03:56:16 +0000, JohnQ wrote:

Is that I can approximate using my ideal of a language in it. On the
flip side, what I dislike most about it is all the
flak/protecting-the-golden-calf one gets when using it that way.

[snip JohnQ stock anti-template rant]

Ok, you have issues with templates in C++. Here's what to do:

(1) Don't use templates.

(2) Stop trolling c.l.c++ with tedious anti-template rants.

--
Lionel B