This is an archive of CompuServe forum messages from 1985 to 1995, as saved in transcripts by John Foust.
Search Results (506 messages)
> I have heard that NASA during the moon program use 3.14 as PI not 3.1415…, >which is what I would expect. If you mean they puposely did so, I'd question the context. If you mean some part of the code did so, I wouldn't doubt it. >Though the instructor…
>Instead of using "int" as your declaration, use "long". That will give you >4 Bytes which allows from -2,147,483,648 to +2,147,483,648. He can also get a few more ounces out of the number (if it's positive) by, as Jim recommends, having it as an unsigned as well. Nonetheless, I think…
>i tryed printf("%7.000000\n, number);…It dident work. BTW, all few posts, including mine earlier today, are assuming that you're still trying to output floats, and that the above was a typo somehow, and hence didn't comment on this, but actually, is it a typo when you posted your problem, or do…
>…finite universe divide 10 by 3, in decimal, perfectly? >Even with 24 megabytes of memory, the "3" digits >would march on and there would be a loss of "perfection" somewhere. Exactly. (Though some number can be represented, it's still a matter of what we're talking about, and what `conversions' need…
>I'll try that. On a side note, CAN the amiga do perfact addition, subtraction, >* and / with decimal without errors? Yes, but everything is of course finite. > BTW, i tryed printf("%7.000000\n, >number);…It dident work. oh well. Thanks for the pointer! Remember that printf needs to _convert_ the float…
C++ Options
Message #48414
>now I'm ready to consider getting C++ going. Your C++ options include: Comeau C++ 3.0b With Templates, SAS/C++, g++, and Maxxon C++.
>>This doesn't follow and is unfounded. >Is it? At least in the case of C, it is a fact that C is now a subset of C++ >and not vice versa. Logic clearly dictates that if a program contains more >instructions there are more chances for errors and, statistically at…
It seems to me that he was implying that Ispell was a dictionary, though it sounds like a spell check program, but anyway that he downloaded the source and wanted to get a binary of it somehow. Lieven, please elaborate!
>thank you for so much agreement 🙂 🙂 >X11 also started before OO languages were en vogue. This was really the root of my question. That is to say, the models don't necessarily mix (say MS-Windows vs X11, or C++ vs MS-Windows), although similar in ways, and so, although I…
>I noticed that any printf messages in my source were left as text >strings in the compiled program. Yes. > What I don't like about this is that anyone >with a good editor can change what I have written to the user. Yes. >How can I code constant strings into…
>The key is here, to concentrate on "C" first. Learn ANSI C with ANSI C >funstions, and get to know them well, before you plunge into Amiga C. I couldn't agree more.
#ObjectOriented
Message #48301
>Replay: using OO techniques is a matter of style and not of a language. I agree. On the same hand, I think the language cannot escape the issue at some point in the process. Surely the language should be completely secondarly, but surely it cannot be considered insignificant either. >Add:…
>I can see that you don't need a special OO language to use OO techniques. Though it is preferred (IMO). >Not only that you can use non-OO techniques with some OO languages! Absolutely. IMO, this is the real beauty of hybrid languages like C++. This differs from say Smalltalk, which…
>The idea of building all my own tools has a certain apeal to me but in reality >I don't have the expertise or the time to write a compiler, and I expect that >goes for most amateur and professional developers. It really cannot be any other way. As much fun…
>Exec has more than just simple >encapsulation: Classes with transmitted sub-classes and methods. Using >semaphores or one of the various other message systems, you may implement >independent interacting objects. How does this compare to say MS-Windows notions of these things (object and so on)?
>I'm arguing for the OO side, of course. Yes, I wasn't disputing that (I am too). >Reviewing my programming styles back to '72, using object classes and methods >grew up in a natural-like matter, with a kind suppport of amiga os libraries >in the last eight years. As a result,…
>> .. people are prepared to pay much for a faster computer .. >That's to overcome the sluggishness of present day programs (using sloppy >compilers?) and operating systems such as Windows .. > indeed! Seriously though, I get concerned about this because I seem to see a trend (at least…
>Generally, you were instructed not to fiddle with information >in the various library base structures; instead, you were to "make application" >to read or change such information via library calls. I think this is related to an issue Peter was trying to understand better. Being told not to fiddle is…
>>So I'm back to putting display statements in the program just like I used to >>do with 8 bit Microsoft Basic! >Isn't that great! 🙂 Frankly, I sincerely believe this kind of thing should always have its place. >I am against the use of HLL's by programmers making commercial >programs…
>>..unless, of course, there's a bug in the assembler. 🙂 >True of course, and I have met one or two. The big advantage, even then, is >that assembler errors are generally very much easier to track down and >circumvent than compiler errors. I see your use of generally, and do…
>What I meant is that OO languages are much bigger than the old classical ones >and that there are thus more opportunities to have bugs in them. This doesn't follow and is unfounded. Seriously note that intuition is often wrong, dead wrong. This is an important insight that folks, including…
>What I meant is that, very often, you have an error that will never be >seen during the useable life of the program. This implies "dead code" which IMO does belong there in the first place then. This is part of what unit testing and other instrumentation should expose. Although…
>Not programming in assembler has cost me a few years of my life in >solving >compiler bugs. >…when writing “portable'' code. There were different bugs in the >different compilers and the code had to be written so that all bugs were >circumvented. In the end it was a non-useable program.…
>>I find this kind of statement w/o any basis. I want to hope I'm >>misinterpreting it, but your statement seems clear cut and in context. Surely >>there are OO scenario's/designs/languages/etc that can bring this about, >>sometimes, but surely this can be this case in non-OO scenario's too. >Haha, if you…
>What I meant is that the Amiga OS is so well written that >you don't need an OO language to program efficiently. IMO, that simply does not follow. They are disjoint issues, how could they not be?
>> "Traditional C" usually connotes K&R C .. >OK, would you go for "generic C"? No, that has different connotations, and believe it is also a product name :-(. >I was trying to address the original question, "What's a good book from which >to learn C?". The problem as I…
>When you put it that way, yes it does make sense. I suppose its a case of >terminology, I consider local variables and statics as a way of avoiding >confusion But, indeed, that's part of it here too. I suspect you unfamiliarity is throwing you a curve somehow. >(I have…
>the principles of OOP are language indepent, indeed. Indeed. >Of course, you will >need a much extended – and therefore slow one – BASIC interpreter to handle >capsuled stuctures 🙂 Yes, and herein lies part of the point of an OOL. It is not so much that you must have…
> You don't give up that much. C is quite efficient, and compiles into fast >code. There are also ways of arraging to trim out much of the "canned code" >(I'm referring to c.o and some of the stuff it invokes) if you're familiar with >your C compiler's environment. For…
>What language would you suggest a New Programmer start to learn? The choices >are really almost endless. Frankly, I think the choices are endless. I'm much more concerned about a new programmer learning/knowing how to think, weight, consider, research, sweat, etc, than what size paintbrush or hammer they have. Too…
>>>they get worried if I use C. >> I'm much more worried about programmers than the languages they use 🙁 >That sounds like a good attitude. I think so. I learned early on to keep a broad and open mind on issues. Thinks are just too diverse to be pig…
>>…structures, why do you need some enforcement mechanism to control this? > >I would guess that it keeps you from having to design and remember rules that >help you "be careful how you manipulate your data structures." The rules, to >some extent, are designed for you. You get to design…
>When I am designing a program I usually start by looking at what information I >will be using and I design data structures to represent that. Then as the >design progresses I will write functions to manipulate these structures. That always needs to be done in the end. Its this…
ObjectOriented
Message #48213
>> There is one, extremely important advantage to programming in assembler >> instead of other languages: all the bugs are YOURS! > >This is very true! Please, don't overstate this. For the most part, the bugs are usually yours. There will always be some outside "event". This thread has preoccupied…
>You are talking about the Amiga and you got me! The trouble is that, with the >Amiga and only with the Amiga my experience is the same! That on the Amiga, only, OO is better????????
>A good part of getting used to the C language is learning how to cope with >pointers Very true. And something every C programmer should master. Equally though, I rather tend to not consider it a "good part" but just another part of the deal. Surely, vast quantities of C…
>>"… all the bugs are YOURS!" > >..unless, of course, there's a bug in the assembler. 🙂 I've met many of them. Make that 🙂 a 🙁 >>"Isn't it LOGICAL to speak the language of the computer instead of learning >>another language that is ultimately translated to machine language anyway?"…
#ObjectOriented
Message #48199
>>It is not a natural outcome of OO as you suggest. >From what I wrote I think you will understand I didn't want to suggest that OO >CAUSES trouble. I affirm however that logic clearly dictates that OO-based >languages ARE more buggy than other, much simpler, languages. I don't understand.…
#ObjectOriented
Message #48198
>I don't know whoever said it first, but I consider it >true: EVERY more or less big program contains several errors. Number of errors alone is of course inconclusive of anything, but in general I'll buy that. And no doubt EVERY more or less small program containsseveral errors. In a…
#ObjectOriented
Message #48197
>Wayne, I have a problem with you! I even like your arguments! The trouble >is, I think, that you speak more like an idealist. I think he's just laying the cards down in a practical way. There is no optimal solution in general. This is not idealism but pragmatics. >…
#ObjectOriented
Message #48196
>The trouble with software as science is that it remains an art in exactly the >same way as literature. I'm not sure how you mean the comparison with literature, so it would be interesting to here your thought. In any event, I'm the first to admit that software still involves…
#ObjectOriented
Message #48195
>>I suppose it is the same trade off between low level efficiency and fast >>development that has been going on since programming began. > >Agreed. This is certainly not wholeheartedly the issue. >Not programming in assembler has cost me a few years of my life in >solving compiler bugs. I've…
ObjectOriented
Message #48194
>Something that makes casual reading of a program difficult is the concept of >"operator overloading". Just as within Basic the "+" operator might mean more >than one thing (addition or concatenation), the C++ language allows – or >insists on – extensive operator overloading, so that one object can interact >with…
ObjectOriented
Message #48193
>The other way it gets a bad rap is when it it partially implemented late in the >development cycle. This is true of "any sanity added to any chaos", but yes, it's an easy politics "see, see, I told you". Always sad in the real world. > What most people…
ObjectOriented
Message #48192
>>As far as I am concerned, OO makes programs slower, bigger, more buggy, >>…than plain good (not too structured) programming. > >That is the case for programmers who do not comprehend and correctly apply the >paradigm, just as it was the case with structured programming when things moved >from "software…
ObjectOriented
Message #48191
>I see what you mean. My usual approach to designing a program is to design data >structures that match the way I am trying to solve the problem and write >functions to manipulate them. Sooner or later than comes into play (or better do so!). >The advantage of OO is…
ObjectOriented
Message #48190
>Here's a rough sense of what OO gives you. You can (and should) take a piece >of the program's operation, and make it a fully independent module. Well, I can do that under other setups too. BTW, it would be nice to have your definition of 'module', as well as…
#ObjectOriented
Message #48189
>> As far as I am concerned, OO makes programs slower, bigger, more buggy, >> … than plain good (not too structured) programming. > >I suppose it is the same trade off between low level efficiency and fast >development that has been going on since programming began. Not necessarily. >I…
#ObjectOriented
Message #48188
>As far as I am concerned, OO makes programs slower, bigger, more buggy, … >than plain good (not too structured) programming. I find this kind of statement w/o any basis. I want to hope I'm misinterpreting it, but your statement seems clear cut and in context. Surely there are OO…
#ObjectOriented
Message #48187
>Do you find OO to be a good method for desingning programs? When applicable, yes. >I am supposed to be getting some OO trainning in a few months. >From what I have seen reading about it so far it doesn't look much >different from good structured programming. I'm interpreting your…
Page 1 of 11