Really frustrated when moving from C# to C++
-
C# to C++?! You shouldn't expect that move to be easy, and you should in fact be happy that you were not moving to C.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
You shouldn't reveal we C programmers are not friendly with intruders.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
I've just moved to Python - you can't even tell a thread to terminate or pass variables by reference!
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^] "Program as if the technical support department is full of serial killers and they know your home address" - Ray Cassick Jr., RIP
Trollslayer wrote:
Python
we're talking about programming languages, aren't we? :rolleyes:
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
CPallini wrote:
you should find moving to VB refreshing...
...the parts other programming languages don't want to go anywhere near?
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
OriginalGriff wrote:
...the parts other programming languages don't want to go anywhere near?
Exactly: that's VB garbage collector's definition.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
I've just moved to Python - you can't even tell a thread to terminate or pass variables by reference!
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^] "Program as if the technical support department is full of serial killers and they know your home address" - Ray Cassick Jr., RIP
Trollslayer wrote:
I've just moved to Python
*Danger* Euphemism alert *Danger*
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
And even worse, pointers do exist in C# and work very much the same way.
"I just exchanged opinions with my boss. I went in with mine and came out with his." - me, 2011 ---
I am endeavoring, Madam, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins - Mr. Spock 1935 and me 2011CDP1802 wrote:
And even worse, pointers do exist in C# and work very much the same way.
That depends on a specific definition of some of the terms in the statement however. The following comes from the C# Language Specification in the Unsafe Code section. "The core C# language, as defined in the preceding chapters, differs notably from C and C++ in its omission of pointers as a data type. Instead, C# provides references and the ability to create objects that are managed by a garbage collector."
-
You're really gonna miss the String class. :)
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on! Code, follow, or get out of the way.
Steve Echols wrote:
You're really gonna miss the String class
Why? STL has a perfectly good implementation of string handling.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Real programmers don't use
CStrings. In fact real programmers don't use strings at all. :-\If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles]CPallini wrote:
In fact real programmers don't use strings at all
Real programmers just use really thin ropes?
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Steve Echols wrote:
You're really gonna miss the String class
Why? STL has a perfectly good implementation of string handling.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
So does ATL/WTL/MFC/Boost. My point was that String is not built into the language, so when you're bouncing between different project types, you're always have to adjust, because they're all a little bit different.
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on! Code, follow, or get out of the way.
-
CPallini wrote:
In fact real programmers don't use strings at all
Real programmers just use really thin ropes?
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
:laugh:
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on! Code, follow, or get out of the way.
-
There are two ways to look at this, either: a) once you have figured out how pointers and referencing works (in which case you'll be a "man") --or-- b) you just give up as it is too complicated There is a very real difference between groups a & b. The people who write .net understand this stuff, they handle it for you (for the most part). If you have any interest in your craft, it will be good to get to grips with this stuff. When the penny dropped for me (back when I was at uni) it was like a moment of zen enlightenment, it tied together several parts of disparate courses: it bridged the gap between chip design & assembler and the higher level stuff we'd been doing elswhere. Although I found it interesting for its own sake, I still find this stuff useful ten years on. It makes learning new langauages easier for one thing.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Like learning to drive with a stick. If you can drive a stick you can drive anything!
Semper Fi http://www.hq4thmarinescomm.com[^]
www.jaxcoder.com[^] WinHeist -
Yes... and your point is?
-
You shouldn't reveal we C programmers are not friendly with intruders.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles]Just giving him a little heads up. :)
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
-
Mostly because of how pointers and references work, and also function definition seems very different. :((
I recommend Data Structures and Algorithms Using C++ (Second Edition) (one is available in new condition for $25). Pages 3-4 and 15-30 cover pointers and reference variables very well (I was just reminiscing yesterday about my C++ days and read a few pages from this book :-O ).
-
CPallini wrote:
In fact real programmers don't use strings at all
Real programmers just use really thin ropes?
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Nope: they use topological defects of the Universe.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
bob16972 wrote:
and instead ended up trying to "fix" what was wrong with copy Java.
FFY.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
Trollslayer wrote:
Python
we're talking about programming languages, aren't we? :rolleyes:
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
Trollslayer wrote:
I've just moved to Python
*Danger* Euphemism alert *Danger*
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Mostly because of how pointers and references work, and also function definition seems very different. :((
And you haven't even scratched the surface... The frustration will last for another five years aftetr which, if you make it through, you might get addicted.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
And you haven't even scratched the surface... The frustration will last for another five years aftetr which, if you make it through, you might get addicted.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchyWait until the OP finds out you can't put two greater than signs next to each other when using templates without the compiler barfing. :)
-
My observation is that people who discount the importance of knowing how things really work (i.e. how things work in the absence of an unseen, out-of-thread garbage collector) tend to be people who look at everything from a very PC-centered perspective. On a PC, or anything resembling a PC, it probably does not make sense for application code to need to do anything special just to effect proper garbage collection. But a real computer scientist, or even a reasonably good (i.e. versatile) programmer, should realize that not everything is a PC, and that there is value to being able to run things on devices that are not PCs (e.g. microcontrollers retailing for $2). This is just one of a whole family of spurious, PC-centric arguments I see on the Internet, which has, after all, become a network largely comprised of PCs. Statements like "every application should have logging" or "every application should be OO" fall into the same category. Such assertions really seem nonsensical if one considers the code that runs inside of digital wristwatches, DVD drive controllers, and such.
Can you really blame them? That's what everybody keeps teaching them. And they are used to having a comfortable IDE, a big fat framework, strong mulitcore processors with a strong GPU to help out, a few gigabytes RAM and a few terabytes mass storage at their disposal. This also means that they are used to clubbing down many problems simply with brute force and getting away with it. And when they don't get away with it, they usually are at a total loss to explain why, since they have done everything the right way.
"I just exchanged opinions with my boss. I went in with mine and came out with his." - me, 2011 ---
I am endeavoring, Madam, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins - Mr. Spock 1935 and me 2011
