C vs Perl

[len v]

A recent (Oct 3) Fox Trox comic (Bill Amend ) got me thinking causing me to
edit the origional comic. Bill then had to write a patch, as most C
programers must do.( http://homepage.mac.com/billamend/images/patch.gif )

To see the comparison, go to ---> http://perl.hacker.freeservers.com/

[Noah Roberts]

len v wrote:

A recent (Oct 3) Fox Trox comic (Bill Amend ) got me thinking causing me to
edit the origional comic. Bill then had to write a patch, as most C
programers must do.( http://homepage.mac.com/billamend/images/patch.gif )

To see the comparison, go to ---> http://perl.hacker.freeservers.com/

Where is the C++ version? I don't see it.
--
Noah Roberts
- "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

[red floyd]

Noah Roberts wrote:

len v wrote:

A recent (Oct 3) Fox Trox comic (Bill Amend ) got me thinking causing
me to
edit the origional comic. Bill then had to write a patch, as most C
programers must do.(
http://homepage.mac.com/billamend/images/patch.gif )

To see the comparison, go to ---> http://perl.hacker.freeservers.com/

Where is the C++ version? I don't see it.

Don't know, but the original C code had an error. There was no new line, so it
would output the following;

I will not throw paper airplanes in class.I will not throw paper airplanes in
class.I will not....

Oh, here's a C++ version

#include <iostream>
#include <iterator>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
vector<string> v(500,string("I will not throw paper airplanes in class."));
copy(v.begin(), v.end(), ostream_iterator(cout,"\n"));
return 0;
}

[Julián Albo]

red floyd escribió:

Oh, here's a C++ version

#include <iostream>
#include <iterator>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
vector<string> v(500,string("I will not throw paper airplanes in class."));
copy(v.begin(), v.end(), ostream_iterator(cout,"\n"));
return 0;
}

Mine is better ;)

#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
using namespace std;

int main ()
{
fill_n (ostream_iterator <string> (cout, "\n"),
500, string ("I will not throw paper airplanes in
class") );
}

Regards.

[Joona I Palaste]

len v <cc****@yahoo.com> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:

A recent (Oct 3) Fox Trox comic (Bill Amend ) got me thinking causing me to
edit the origional comic. Bill then had to write a patch, as most C
programers must do.( http://homepage.mac.com/billamend/images/patch.gif ) To see the comparison, go to ---> http://perl.hacker.freeservers.com/

Yes, and I could implement a language called FoxTrot that would have the
following program:

Do it

translate into code that wrote "I will not throw paper airplanes in
class" 500 times into stdout. But I wouldn't guarantee FoxTrot would be
useful for anything else.

IOW, one-off cases like these are useless for comparing elegance of
languages.

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"It sure is cool having money and chicks."
- Beavis and Butt-head

[Serve La]

"red floyd" <no*****@here.dude> wrote in message
news:Co*************@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

Oh, here's a C++ version

#include <iostream>
#include <iterator>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
vector<string> v(500,string("I will not throw paper airplanes in class.")); copy(v.begin(), v.end(), ostream_iterator(cout,"\n"));
return 0;
}

Hmm, there's more includes than lines, what's the world coming to :-)

[Programmer Dude]

len v wrote:

A recent (Oct 3) Fox Trox comic (Bill Amend ) got me thinking
causing me to edit the origional comic.

"Origional" ??

--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|

[Jerry Coffin]

In article <3F***************@terra.es>, JU********@terra.es says...

[ ... ]

#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
using namespace std;

int main ()
{
fill_n (ostream_iterator <string> (cout, "\n"),
500, string ("I will not throw paper airplanes in
class") );
}

std::string supports implicit conversions from C strings, so this can be
reduced a bit further:

#include <ostream>
#include <string>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
using namespace std;

int main ()
{
fill_n (ostream_iterator <string> (cout, "\n"),
500, "I will not throw paper airplanes in class");
}

Also note that I've included <ostream> instead of <iostream> --
including <iostream> _usually_ declares std::cout, but isn't required
to.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

[Stephen M. Webb]

Julián Albo <JU********@terra.es> wrote in message news:<3F***************@terra.es>...

red floyd escribi :

Oh, here's a C++ version

#include <iostream>
#include <iterator>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
vector<string> v(500,string("I will not throw paper airplanes in c

lass."));

copy(v.begin(), v.end(), ostream iterator(cout,"\n"));
return 0;
}

Mine is better ;)

#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
using namespace std;

int main ()
{
fill n (ostream iterator <string> (cout, "\n"),
500, string ("I will not throw paper airplanes in
class") );
}

Feh.

#include <iostream>

struct C {
C() { std::cout << "I will not throw paper airplanes in class\n"; }
} c[500];

int main() { return 0; }

Why resort to complexity? Brevity is the soul of wit.

--
Stephen M. Webb

[Julián Albo]

Jerry Coffin escribió:

int main ()
{
fill_n (ostream_iterator <string> (cout, "\n"),
500, string ("I will not throw paper airplanes in
class") );
}
std::string supports implicit conversions from C strings, so this can be
reduced a bit further:

True. I was under the impression that implicit conversion will not allow
correct template argument deduction, but not.
Also note that I've included <ostream> instead of <iostream> --
including <iostream> _usually_ declares std::cout, but isn't required
to.

True again. My bad habit.

Regards.

[Julián Albo]

"Stephen M. Webb" escribió:

#include <iostream>

struct C {
C() { std::cout << "I will not throw paper airplanes in class\n"; }
} c[500];

int main() { return 0; }

Why resort to complexity? Brevity is the soul of wit.

Nice solution, but vastes memory if great values of 500 were used ;)

Regards.

[Mike Wahler]

"Stephen M. Webb" <st**********@bregmasoft.com> wrote in message
news:34**************************@posting.google.c om...

Julián Albo <JU********@terra.es> wrote in message

news:<3F***************@terra.es>...

red floyd escribi :

Oh, here's a C++ version

#include <iostream>
#include <iterator>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
vector<string> v(500,string("I will not throw paper airplanes in

c lass."));

copy(v.begin(), v.end(), ostream iterator(cout,"\n"));
return 0;
}

Mine is better ;)

#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
using namespace std;

int main ()
{
fill n (ostream iterator <string> (cout, "\n"),
500, string ("I will not throw paper airplanes in
class") );
}

Feh.

#include <iostream>

struct C {
C() { std::cout << "I will not throw paper airplanes in class\n"; }
} c[500];

int main() { return 0; }

Why resort to complexity? Brevity is the soul of wit.

Well then, throw out that 'return' statement too.
-Mike

[Programmer Dude]

len v wrote:

...causing me to edit the origional comic.

"Origional" ??

Looks like I spelled it wrong on the web site too.

That was why I mentioned it. (-:
I've always maintained that a programmer does not have to spell
correctly, just consistent, either right or wrong - the syntax
checker does not care.

I would disagree. For many reasons.

Comments, tech docs, communicating effectively with others.....

--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|

[W K]

"Programmer Dude" <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote in message
news:3F***************@Sonnack.com...

len v wrote:

> ...causing me to edit the origional comic.

"Origional" ??

Looks like I spelled it wrong on the web site too.

That was why I mentioned it. (-:

I've always maintained that a programmer does not have to spell
correctly, just consistent, either right or wrong - the syntax
checker does not care.

I would disagree. For many reasons.

Comments, tech docs, communicating effectively with others.....

They're all dyslexic too, so it doesn't matter.

[Kevin Goodsell]

Jerry Coffin wrote:

Also note that I've included <ostream> instead of <iostream> --
including <iostream> _usually_ declares std::cout, but isn't required
to.

The C++ standard appears to require std::cout be declared in <iostream>:

27.3 Standard iostream objects [lib.iostream.objects]

Header <iostream> synopsis

namespace std {
extern istream cin;
extern ostream cout;
extern ostream cerr;
extern ostream clog;

extern wistream wcin;
extern wostream wcout;
extern wostream wcerr;
extern wostream wclog;
}

As far as I know, the thing that people usually assume is in iostream
which is technically not required to be is std::endl - though I believe
this is considered a defect.

-Kevin
--
My email address is valid, but changes periodically.
To contact me please use the address from a recent posting.

[Jerry Coffin]

In article <Xv*************@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net> ,
us*********************@neverbox.com says...

[ ... ]

The C++ standard appears to require std::cout be declared in <iostream>:

Oops -- you're absolutely right. My apologies for the incorrect post.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

[Micah Cowan]

Jerry Coffin <jc*****@taeus.com> writes:

Also note that I've included <ostream> instead of <iostream> --
including <iostream> _usually_ declares std::cout, but isn't required
to.

This is a bizarre statement. Perhaps you meant the other way
around, but that doesn't make much sense either. Read your
standard, and try again.

#include <iostream>

Is *guaranteed* to declare as follows:

namespace std {
extern istream cin;
extern ostream cout;
extern ostream cerr;
extern ostream clog;
extern wistream wcin;
extern wostream wcout;
extern wostream wcerr;
extern wostream wclog;
}

It has not been my experience that ostream "usually" declares
std::cout at all; and it certainly isn't required to.

I'd have fixed the cross-post, except that I didn't want people
who are only reading alt.comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c to come away
with the wrong idea, either. Followups have been fixed.

--
Micah Cowan
mi***@cowan.name

[Keith Thompson]

Noah Roberts <nr******@dontemailme.com> writes:

len v wrote:

Note to self. Find spell checker for vi.
Looks like I spelled it wrong on the web site too. I've always
maintained
that a programmer does not have to spell correctly, just consistent, either
right or wrong - the syntax checker does not care.

My compiler really doesn't like it when I spell freind wrong.

Mine doesn't care.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks*@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"