Language + ? = BFF
-
Python: a tab and three spaces just to annoy people.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
Python 3 doesn't allow mixing tabs and spaces though :) But I really wish they had gone with tabs as the preferred option rather than spaces X|
Cheers, Vikram.
-
What single structure or specific operator better defines a given language? As an example, I was thinking of: C * C++ - vector C# - List Java - arrays Any other languages or thoughts?
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Python 3 doesn't allow mixing tabs and spaces though :) But I really wish they had gone with tabs as the preferred option rather than spaces X|
Cheers, Vikram.
Maybe there should be an option, perhaps something like
strict. -
Javascript - "undefined". :-)
Visual Basic -- nothing Mmm, yeah, quite literally.
-
enums are also way better in .net languages. -
Sorry, the only language I know, which treats enum as enum is Modula2. All languages who allow to assign an enum item a individual value don't treat enum as enum and it should be forbidden that these languages missuse the a type called enum. ;)
Unsure what you are saying. Do you mean the ability to assign a value which isn't defined by the
enum? I can agree with not liking that. -
Unsure what you are saying. Do you mean the ability to assign a value which isn't defined by the
enum? I can agree with not liking that.My view, only: enumeration should be only enumeration. Means nobody should have the right to assign a specific value to any member of an enum. enum {theFirst, theSecond} should always end theFirst= 0, theSecond= 1. Even they should not be addressed by an intgeger value. Like it is in e.g. Modula2. And no one should be allowed to define theFirst= 1000 Sorry, I'm not native english and therefore I have problems to express me. [Edit] An enumeration where you can define element0= -100 or whatever and element1= 100 is not an enumeration for me ;)
-
My view, only: enumeration should be only enumeration. Means nobody should have the right to assign a specific value to any member of an enum. enum {theFirst, theSecond} should always end theFirst= 0, theSecond= 1. Even they should not be addressed by an intgeger value. Like it is in e.g. Modula2. And no one should be allowed to define theFirst= 1000 Sorry, I'm not native english and therefore I have problems to express me. [Edit] An enumeration where you can define element0= -100 or whatever and element1= 100 is not an enumeration for me ;)
Ah, I see, but I disagree. I prefer to be able to specify the values. It's kinda important for "flags" type enumerated values. Maybe there should be an Attribute which enables things -- yes, I know about the FlagsAttribute, but it really only affects how strings are formed or parsed, it has nothing to do with what values are defined or assigned.
public enum Option
{
None = 0
,
UTF8 = 1
,
ASCII = 2 | UTF8
,
All = ASCII
}Maybe a "bare"
enumwould enforce a strict value assignment and the ability to specify the values would require the developer to activate other features. -
Quote:
What single structure or specific operator better defines a given language?
That was your question.
template,virtual, andclassare all better answers thanvector. In fact,vectoris an idiotic answer to that specific question. Especially sincevectorisn't a structure or operator. :doh: :doh: :doh: Of course, neither are the items I've given, but they do define the language.Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
Collections are also structures. You need to spend a little more time learning the basics.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Yes. C++ demands more abstract thinking.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
C++ for me would be
templateI don't really use the STL that much due to working with tiny amounts of RAM.To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
You are lucky you have them. Not all embedded systems' compilers support templates (for example some Verifone proprietary systems).
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
You are lucky you have them. Not all embedded systems' compilers support templates (for example some Verifone proprietary systems).
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
I've had this discussion before, and where I come down on it, is if your compiler doesn't support a major language feature, like template, you don't support the C++ language - you support a C++ subset.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
No generics in v1. System.String is dreadful, the unavoidability of immutability is a very short-sighted (ivory tower) idea. They had to include StringBuilder just to make things work. It would be better for strings to be mutable by default and then be able to set them as immutable later as needed --
mystring.AsReadOnly()ormystring.ReadOnly = trueBleah, ptui. :mad:Without digging I suspect the string limitation is for the same reason as in Java in that it is not only fundamental to the language but to the VM. Certainly in Java that is the case. If is was mutable then it would lead to problems, in the VM, about things like security and performance.
-
Collections are also structures. You need to spend a little more time learning the basics.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
So you are one of those annoying contrarians. Gotcha! As an FYI, the definition of
vectorin my installation of VS2019 doesn't contain a singlestructin the top-level definitions. No, avectorisn't astructby C++'s definitions. It would be better described as an array of items. Or, to use your own word, avectoris a container. :doh: :doh: :doh:Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
Without digging I suspect the string limitation is for the same reason as in Java in that it is not only fundamental to the language but to the VM. Certainly in Java that is the case. If is was mutable then it would lead to problems, in the VM, about things like security and performance.
rhetorical mode on...Then explain how StringBuilder works. Or, better... yet what underlies the VM does not have such a limitation; the VM is written in a language which doesn't rely on the VM. So your point should be more addressed as "why did they choose to implement the VM that way?" Yes, I understand that something like the .net framework has names of things and names of things must not be mutable, that's perfectly understandable. But making all string values immutable -- particularly values used by an application -- is hitting the issue with too big a hammer. I'm not qualified to say, but it seems to me that a VM and framework could be implemented such that a string value will be mutable until it is set to immutable, even if that is at compile time. -
So you are one of those annoying contrarians. Gotcha! As an FYI, the definition of
vectorin my installation of VS2019 doesn't contain a singlestructin the top-level definitions. No, avectorisn't astructby C++'s definitions. It would be better described as an array of items. Or, to use your own word, avectoris a container. :doh: :doh: :doh:Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
hint: Data structures are not the same thing as the C-style structs. :)
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
hint: Data structures are not the same thing as the C-style structs. :)
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
You really want to be taken as an arrogant asshole, evidently. Sorry to hear that. I will start tuning you out. Best wishes, David
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
rhetorical mode on...Then explain how StringBuilder works. Or, better... yet what underlies the VM does not have such a limitation; the VM is written in a language which doesn't rely on the VM. So your point should be more addressed as "why did they choose to implement the VM that way?" Yes, I understand that something like the .net framework has names of things and names of things must not be mutable, that's perfectly understandable. But making all string values immutable -- particularly values used by an application -- is hitting the issue with too big a hammer. I'm not qualified to say, but it seems to me that a VM and framework could be implemented such that a string value will be mutable until it is set to immutable, even if that is at compile time.PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Then explain how StringBuilder works.
Huh? Because it is a different class of course. Other than that I suggest you look at the Java API source code, which I have. You will find that StringBuilder is entirely written in Java.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
"why did they choose to implement the VM that way?"
Strings are intrinsic part of modern programming languages. That was known before java was created. Other than that I can only guess that given that the the class file itself would have needed some kind of unique identifier regardless of how it was implemented. So using a String value for that perhaps was just convenient.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
is hitting the issue with too big a hammer.
Yes but that isn't the point. The type 'String' is part of the VM definition. It is not well defined in the specification. For that matter the entirety of the VM/Java specification is not very well done. It still has errors in it today which have existed since the very first version. (For examples of well done specifications look to the ANSI C and C++ specifications.) But even if it had been better specified it would have been "very short-sighted" to allow it to be mutable.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
that a string value will be mutable until it is set to immutable
At a minimum that would have required at least one and perhaps several features in the Java Spec and VM Spec. I am not even sure it would be possible. I say that because consider how one can access private data members via JNI or even reflection. Certainly with my understanding of security matters I would say that I would not like to see accessing it that way. (I note that I suspect it is possible to hack a C/JNI solution that would allow one to make a String mutable, but it would be VM version dependent and would require an extreme amount of spelunking and would be very difficult to change the length of the string versus just characters in the string.)
