Really frustrated when moving from C# to C++
-
bob16972 wrote:
instead ended up trying to "fix" what was wrong with Java.
That might have been true for C# 1.0, but C# now has closures, delegates, anonymous types, lazy evaluation (yield) which AFAIK, neither C++ nor Java have. Of course, you could write code yourself to get the same effect, but I hope that's not what we are talking here.
Regards Senthil _____________________________ My Home Page |My Blog | My Articles | My Flickr | WinMacro
Delegates can be useful in C#, but I'd have to say that I could only be glad if the other 3 never got fully implemented in any language. I'm sure there will be those who differ in opinion with my view and all I can say is, have fun coding/debugging/tracing and reading code that utilizes those features. You have my sympathies. :sigh:
-
Delegates can be useful in C#, but I'd have to say that I could only be glad if the other 3 never got fully implemented in any language. I'm sure there will be those who differ in opinion with my view and all I can say is, have fun coding/debugging/tracing and reading code that utilizes those features. You have my sympathies. :sigh:
Well, I personally love any language feature that helps express my intent concisely, and I must say I use closures and lazy evaluation a lot. Besides, it's not like these features were invented by the C# language designers - they've been around for a long time in functional programming languages. I'm curious though - do you dislike these features because they increase the level of abstraction from the machine?
Regards Senthil _____________________________ My Home Page |My Blog | My Articles | My Flickr | WinMacro
-
What's so bad about CString? ducks
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
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
-
Mostly because of how pointers and references work, and also function definition seems very different. :((
I've found three courses very useful: these are the Programming Methodology (Java), Programming Abstractions (C++) and Programming Paradigms (Advanced C++) available for free at the "Stanford Engineering Everywhere" site: http://see.stanford.edu/see/courses.aspx[^] You'll be surprised to note that they teach pointers in the Java course. This is what makes you a real programmer. After that, learning about C++ going through the second and third courses is easier. In fact, if you search for "CS106B", you'll reach the course site, where you'll find a C++ Course Reader, which is very well written. Keep in mind that all of this is for free.
-
Mostly because of how pointers and references work, and also function definition seems very different. :((
Bite on it big boy, you are in a mans world now! :cool:
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Mostly because of how pointers and references work, and also function definition seems very different. :((
Hmm. I went the opposite direction. I spent years programming in C++, and only a couple of years ago started working in C# as well. Like a lot of other C++ -> C# folks, I'm mainly frustrated by the lack of a deterministic destructor (and don't bring up
IDisposable; just don't). I believe you have the harder way to go. I simply had to learn a certain amount of ".NET-fu". I also had to learn to recognize when I was working too hard at the problem at hand. A lot of times I tried to re-invent the wheel, when .NET had a perfectly good set of wheels already available. While the C++ does include a substantial body of 'plumbing' code available in the form of standard and open source libraries, most of it is less systematized and organized than the .NET libraries. This makes it much more likely that you will be tempted to write your own 'plumbing' code. Best quote I've heard regarding C++ came from Bjarne Stroustrup, creator of the language: "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. With C++, you blow your entire leg off." My addendum, regarding C#: "With C#, the good news is you're shooting rubber bullets."Software Zen:
delete this; -
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 2011 -
Well, I personally love any language feature that helps express my intent concisely, and I must say I use closures and lazy evaluation a lot. Besides, it's not like these features were invented by the C# language designers - they've been around for a long time in functional programming languages. I'm curious though - do you dislike these features because they increase the level of abstraction from the machine?
Regards Senthil _____________________________ My Home Page |My Blog | My Articles | My Flickr | WinMacro
-
I feel the same way about C++ to C#. I've found you still need to check for null just as often and C#, without the .NET library (libraries are really a different topic...IMHO), is hardly the C++ 2.0 most C/C++ programmers had been longing for. I would like a reinvented C/C++ without all the historical baggage but I'd like to keep pointers and references the way they are. I had high hopes for C# but I think they missed a great opportunity to "fix" what was wrong with C/C++ and instead ended up trying to "fix" what was wrong with Java.
-
The only thing wrong with C++ are some of the developers using it. :doh:
Ego non sum semper iustus tamen Ego sum nunquam nefas!
-
bob16972 wrote:
instead ended up trying to "fix" what was wrong with Java.
That might have been true for C# 1.0, but C# now has closures, delegates, anonymous types, lazy evaluation (yield) which AFAIK, neither C++ nor Java have. Of course, you could write code yourself to get the same effect, but I hope that's not what we are talking here.
Regards Senthil _____________________________ My Home Page |My Blog | My Articles | My Flickr | WinMacro
Actually C++ has closures, delegates, anonymous types, lazy evaluation and (yield). - delegates, lazy evaluation exist before C# has it through template in boost.signal, boost.phoenix among others. - closures, anonymous types are on C++0x and already shipped with VC++ 2010 an gcc 4.5+ - yield? here you are
-
Just immagine you had a C64 from 1983. A small 8 bit CPU at less than one MHz and about 50k RAM which you can use. None of the brute force methods you are used to would get you anywhere. Multitasking / multithreading? From the hardware side that would have been no problem. All you need is a hardware timer and an interrupt. But then the interrupt routine, which would have to handle the scheduling of the threads and also the bookkeeping, would nibble away at your little memory. And the effectiveness of having a CPU, which with luck executes 100000 - 200000 instructions per second, do this is more than questionable. Just-in-time-compiler? Or any compiler at all? An IDE which goes beyond a simple text editor? How? CPU, memory and available mass storage (two flopy drives with about 160k disk space each, if you are lucky) are simply not enough. A framework? How many libraries do you think you can load into your memory? And, with only very slow floppies available, some kind of swapping mechanism is also out of the question. Good code? That means wrapping everything up in functions and/or objects. Now and back then, calling a function or method was the same procedure: Push parameters onto the stack, call the function (which then cleans up the stack by removing the parameters), the function then does its job, pushes the return value onto the stack, returns and finally leaves it to the calling code to remove the return value from the stack again. Very quickly the little CPU is working more on the stack than on the actual program. Obviously, good code back then was defined a little differently than today. Those were only a few examples where the brute force approach has become the normal way to go. The more limited your system gets, the less useful the 'normal' approaches become. And I have enough things which were considered obsolete come back.
"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 2011I actually had a compiler back then. It supported some 13 control statements, and variable names could have one relevant character (i. e. only up to 26 different variables allowed), where each variable could be an int, a string, or an (one-dimensional) array of either. I've used it to program my own version of Tetris, although I had to write down much of the programs on paper to be able to build and flatten the three-dimensional arrays I required. I don't recall an actual 'editor', instead I typed each line individually, and had to issue a command for listing the program code if I wanted to see it. (hence my need to write most of it on paper first) PS.: I should add this was on the C=Plus/4 , not the earlier 64. There were quite a few Basic compilers for the latter, but unfortunately not for the former. On a sidenote, here I found a list of languages available for the C64 family. The compiler I used isn't even on there, but as you can see there was in fact a pretty excessive selection of languages available, at least for the C64.
modified on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 8:53 AM
-
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 -
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]Not even g-strings? ;P
-
Mike Hankey wrote:
drive a stick
Hm, are you referring to a broom here? ;)
Why of course but it has to be a straw broom.
Semper Fi http://www.hq4thmarinescomm.com[^]
www.jaxcoder.com[^] WinHeist -
Mostly because of how pointers and references work, and also function definition seems very different. :((
Really not that bad. declared variable e.g. int i = 0; somewhere in memory there is a integer variable named i whose value equals 0. int* i = 0; i points to memory address 0. in order to get/set the value at memory address 0 dereference(*) i. *i = 1234; int j = *i; printf("%d\n", j) prints 1234 Also: int j = 1234; int* i = &j; // address of symbol In english, i is now equal to the address of j. Or i points to j. i++; // This increments the pointer's address to the next integer pointer. Seing that i is a integer the next integer will be 4 bytes from i's initial value. If i was a char it would of incremented the address by 1. j++; // Would just increment the value of j by 1. Hope it helps... that is the basics
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." << please vote!! >>
-
I actually had a compiler back then. It supported some 13 control statements, and variable names could have one relevant character (i. e. only up to 26 different variables allowed), where each variable could be an int, a string, or an (one-dimensional) array of either. I've used it to program my own version of Tetris, although I had to write down much of the programs on paper to be able to build and flatten the three-dimensional arrays I required. I don't recall an actual 'editor', instead I typed each line individually, and had to issue a command for listing the program code if I wanted to see it. (hence my need to write most of it on paper first) PS.: I should add this was on the C=Plus/4 , not the earlier 64. There were quite a few Basic compilers for the latter, but unfortunately not for the former. On a sidenote, here I found a list of languages available for the C64 family. The compiler I used isn't even on there, but as you can see there was in fact a pretty excessive selection of languages available, at least for the C64.
modified on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 8:53 AM
Yes, sure there were some compilers back then. But they kept things much simpler than what we are used to today. I have tried some C compilers for 8 bit machines. With them you use the PC to do your development, test the program in emulators and transfer it to the real thing once you are done. The smallest machine just had 4k RAM and at this point a C compiler becomes almost useless, even if you do your development comfortably on a PC. The compiler (or better: the compiled program) uses up the available memory very fast. If I write my programs in assembly, the result will be much more compact.
"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 -
Mostly because of how pointers and references work, and also function definition seems very different. :((
As one in a similar boat, going from VB to C# to C++. I can appreciate the frustration as I'm still working it out (only been working with C++ about 2 months now). However I enjoy the challenge that it poses and the control you have is great (once you figure it out). The biggest challenge I've had, is once you think you have something figured out and you go to do something similar and nope, didn't quite have that grasp on it and back to re-reading something. Buck up little sailor it's not that bad, we'll get through it... and if not you can always go back to C#, nothing wrong with that.
