Survey Results

First PrevNext

Just love optional parameters! Carl Mercier11-Dec-04 16:15 Carl Mercier 11-Dec-04 16:15  I wonder why they didn't implement this in C#, this is one of my prefered feature in VB.NET! Makes my life so much easier when I need to pass many parameters to a method or function. Re: Just love optional parameters! Eddie de Bear12-Dec-04 13:33 Eddie de Bear 12-Dec-04 13:33  Ever heard of operator overloading??? ParramArrays?? It's easy to produce the same results, just using different techniques.. Re: Just love optional parameters! Eddie de Bear12-Dec-04 13:33 Eddie de Bear 12-Dec-04 13:33  Ever heard of functionoverloading??? ParramArrays?? It's easy to produce the same results, just using different techniques.. Re: Just love optional parameters! Eddie de Bear12-Dec-04 13:33 Eddie de Bear 12-Dec-04 13:33  Ever heard of function overloading??? ParramArrays?? It's easy to produce the same results, just using different techniques.. Re: Just love optional parameters! Eddie de Bear12-Dec-04 13:33 Eddie de Bear 12-Dec-04 13:33  Ever heard of functionoverloading??? ParramArrays?? It's easy to produce the same results, just using different techniques.. Poor goto Chris Maunder10-Dec-04 16:19 Chris Maunder 10-Dec-04 16:19  ...but I'm even sadder that fewer people love Pascal's sets. cheers, Chris Maunder Re: Poor goto Gary R. Wheeler11-Dec-04 2:03 Gary R. Wheeler 11-Dec-04 2:03  Don't feel sorry for goto. Exception handling is in third place, and I've seen all too many people use it as goto-on-steroids Software Zen: delete this; Re: Poor goto Phil Harding11-Dec-04 5:39 Phil Harding 11-Dec-04 5:39  Poor poor pascal sets, the betamax of programming paradigms; superior yet sadly undernourished, it seems me and only 25 other people have basked in the glory....... Just what languages are people using that don't support templates or generics Phil Harding Re: Poor goto Shog911-Dec-04 18:59 Shog9 11-Dec-04 18:59  Ah, poor Pascal. Gotta add that Delphi section, Chris... "The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things..." MFC GridCtrl John M. Drescher8-Dec-04 6:11 John M. Drescher 8-Dec-04 6:11  No matter what platform I use if I can not use Chris Maunder's Grid control I am missing a great api tool. This is the number one reason why I am stuck with MFC. I would like to use WTL, VCL or emilio_grv's win32 classes but with either of these I do not have the grid. And since most of my apps are database driven and I need to display some of the data in a tabular form I would be at a huge disadvantage if I make the switch. John Re: MFC GridCtrl Emilio Garavaglia9-Dec-04 5:03 Emilio Garavaglia 9-Dec-04 5:03  John, how can I get your message less than a 5 ?! -E- Re: MFC GridCtrl John M. Drescher9-Dec-04 6:51 John M. Drescher 9-Dec-04 6:51  I really like the work you have done with your classes; they are very well thought out and designed. I am just waiting to use it in a real app. Most likely this will be a directdraw high resolution medical image viewing application. John What About Library Documentation sixefftee8-Dec-04 6:10 sixefftee 8-Dec-04 6:10  One of the things I really appreciate with some the new languages such as Java, C# and the rest of .Net is the class library docs are much more clear than say, than the old documentation for earlier versions of C++. Re: What About Library Documentation Anonymous9-Dec-04 18:11 Anonymous 9-Dec-04 18:11  There is great "old documentation" for earlier versions of C++ ... maybe not from Microsoft, but documentation is not really a language issue -- it's the documenter's issue, compiler's issue, or tutorial book's issue. Design by Contract Kevin McFarlane8-Dec-04 6:06 Kevin McFarlane 8-Dec-04 6:06  Looks like C# will get it eventually as Microsoft have a new language Spec#, which is a superset of C#, in production at Microsoft Research. http://research.microsoft.com/SpecSharp/[^] Kevin Partial Specializaion MohammadAmiry7-Dec-04 6:55 MohammadAmiry 7-Dec-04 6:55  I think partial specialization intorduced by .NET Framework 2003 is the best feature added to C++ don't you? Re: Partial Specializaion Anonymous7-Dec-04 7:25 Anonymous 7-Dec-04 7:25  Partial specialization is not a .NET thing or even a Microsoft thing. It was standardized as a part of C++ in 1998 (and introduced by some even earlier). It is a shame it took Microsoft 4+ years to support it. Re: Partial Specializaion John M. Drescher8-Dec-04 6:37 John M. Drescher 8-Dec-04 6:37  Anonymous wrote: It is a shame it took Microsoft 4+ years to support it. I agree. And there should have been a service pack to VC6 that adds it. John Re: Partial Specializaion MohammadAmiry9-Dec-04 20:49 MohammadAmiry 9-Dec-04 20:49  Sorry! But I faced that first time in .NET! I shouldn't have made the mistake. Anyway thanks for correcting me;) Better support for generic programming Don Clugston6-Dec-04 11:51 Don Clugston 6-Dec-04 11:51  I think with C++ I have everything I want from that list. Even so, C++ is *far* from perfect. What I would really like is to be able to move even more stuff to compile time. When I have to use VBA (far too often), the thing that annoys me the most is that it will happily compile code with appalling logical errors. Why anyone thinks VB is an "easy language" is beyond my comprehension. C++ templates are the best we've got at the moment, but they're still a bit limited and too obscure (and error checking is a real problem). Not impressed by .NET generics, in some ways (eg absence of specialisation) they are less powerful than late-1980's C++ templates. Re: Better support for generic programming Nemanja Trifunovic7-Dec-04 2:23 Nemanja Trifunovic 7-Dec-04 2:23  Don Clugston wrote: late-1980's C++ templates. Actually the first C++ compiler to support templates was Cfront 3.0, released in 1991. As for generics, I like the way they solve source code organization problem, but in general I agree with you My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it. Re: Better support for generic programming peterchen7-Dec-04 3:33 peterchen 7-Dec-04 3:33  Don Clugston wrote: Not impressed by .NET generics, [..] they are less powerful than late-1980's C++ templates. IMO a wise decision. I've long upheld that the STL is a good library, but a bad standard library. It is too complex, and compiler support to archaic, a "programming engineer" will barely go beyond the "std::vector for arrays" level, and as array class, std::vector is a pain. Templates rock. You can do crazy sh*t with them. What would happen if you could write something like lokis policy based smart pointer in C#? Of course everybody would start to contribute cool template magic, and soon fundamental C# libraries would be ununderstandable for the "programming engineer" mentioned above. C# shines at making programming simpler, C++ - style templates could kill that in an instant. we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr. boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen Re: Better support for generic programming Don Clugston7-Dec-04 13:02 Don Clugston 7-Dec-04 13:02  > Templates rock. You can do crazy sh*t with them. Oh yeah!! I've not had so much fun since the days of the Z80. I'm hanging out for typedefs with partial template specialisation. > C# shines at making programming simpler, C++ - style templates could kill that in an instant. I'm looking forward to watching the impending war between C# and Herb Sutter's C++/CLI for control of .NET. If he's even partly successful in making C++ the preferred language for .NET, so that C# has to be compatible with C++, rather than vice versa, things could get very interesting. I'll be watching from a distance Re: Better support for generic programming WoR7-Dec-04 3:37 WoR 7-Dec-04 3:37  I agree that generic programming is important, but I believe that templates are a poor attemt at it. If you look at the boost library (or the likes of it), its obvious that templates are more of a language opening for any kind of extension (almost like lamba calculus) at often horrendous syntax (no crititisism to the writers of boost etc. C++ just doesn't allow for more). As such templates are much more evil than macros. You can really mess up the language. Templates are definitly the dark side of the power (which doesn´t mean they can´t be fun). But as for generics, I´d prefer the subtype polymorphism as presented in several modern database languages (you specify your minimal type reqirement in a type-hierarchy and you get _one_ function that works on all compatible types. Wolfgang Reichl Re: Better support for generic programming Shog98-Dec-04 11:34 Shog9 8-Dec-04 11:34  WoR wrote: As such templates are much more evil than macros. Donno man... i've seen some pretty evil macros. "The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things..."

Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00     Last Update: 26-May-24 18:46 Refresh 123 Next ᐅ

General    News    Suggestion    Question    Bug    Answer    Joke    Praise    Rant    Admin   

Use Ctrl+Left/Right to switch messages, Ctrl+Up/Down to switch threads, Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right to switch pages.