Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 67

Thread: John Carmack's Comments On C/C++

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    That's why D has an option to turn it off.
    And much of the standard library relies on GC, so what then, roll your own to be sure?

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joe_gunner View Post
    And much of the standard library relies on GC, so what then, roll your own to be sure?
    Part of the whole "fad" part of 'D'. I should check back into CLAY. From a language perspective that was looking pretty decent. Not just another same old same old object inheritance thing, but an attempt at some orthogonality and simplicity. The biggest strike was missing "const".

    Btw this is a topic about john carmack and c++. How did this turn into a discussion on 'D'? Sometimes I wonder about astroturfing...
    Last edited by bnolsen; 01-15-2013 at 04:46 PM.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    166

    Cool my opinion

    The c++ benefits does not compensate for its technical cost. Then, better stick to C.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sylware View Post
    The c++ benefits does not compensate for its technical cost. Then, better stick to C.
    The c++ benefits does not compensate for its technical cost for you. What you wrote is like saying "Don't use competition skis, their benefits do not compensate for the difficulty to handle them". Certainly true for a beginner, certainly false for a competitor.
    I personally would miss exceptions, templates and polymorphism too much.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newwen View Post
    As I'm old school (and embedded developer) I still use C. But even with C, my coding rules ban me from using some features of the language. The thing is that C++ has many features that leave a program indecipherable, like operator overloading. Yes, it is a powerful tool, yet it is often misused and makes the code hard to understand.
    Being a C programmer, I've always liked Java for it's simplicity. But then again, Java developers tend to abuse OOP paradignms just for the sake of having beautiful object model design. If I had to ask something to Java is unsafe contexts and an easier JNI, just like C# has them.
    Anyway, If you write C code, you get a better glimpse of what machine code the compiler may generate.
    Just adding a native unsigned 8-bit int type to java would make me happy.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bnolsen View Post
    Part of the whole "fad" part of 'D'. I should check back into CLAY. From a language perspective that was looking pretty decent. Not just another same old same old object inheritance thing, but an attempt at some orthogonality and simplicity. The biggest strike was missing "const".
    Have you checked out the Rust programming language by Mozilla (rust-lang.org)? It it a systems programming language with many safety features (no null pointers, const/immutability by default, built on top of the LLVM, no GC if you don't need it, etc.)

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnebdal View Post
    Just adding a native unsigned 8-bit int type to java would make me happy.
    So what does "unsigned byte" do then?

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancurio View Post
    So what does "unsigned byte" do then?
    Fail to compile.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnebdal View Post
    Just adding a native unsigned 8-bit int type to java would make me happy.
    I don't understand why 'byte' is signed in the first place, but it wouldn't give you much if there was such type. Every integer operation where none of the operands is a long is done in 32bit.
    so it's byte + byte is converted to int + int and the result is converted back to byte.
    This means you would use a little bit less space but have a more expensive operation, which is probably the reason 'byte' is signed. so byte2int and int2byte is just adding and removing bits from/to one end.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    9

    Default

    This is why I like D. Compared to C++/C#/Java, D gets a lot of things right.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •