🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1995Aug15.233327.59035@cc.usu.edu>, slmyv@millville.declab.usu.edu (Denys Larry) writes:
> In article <1995Aug15.014740.7996@ohstpy>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> |>In article <40o2l4$aqp@deyke3.fc.hp.com>, rainer@deyke3.fc.hp.com (Rainer Deyke) writes:
> |>> When writing C++ code, always think
> |>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |>> about how something would translate into C.  This prevents you from
> |>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |>
> |>I do and say, THANK GOD I CHOSE C++ FOR THIS PROJECT!
> |>
> |>I have written more C code than you can shake a stick at, I have written
> |>object-oriented code in C, and, being a recent C++ convert, C++
> |>has improved the quality and maintenance requirements of my work by
> |>so many orders of magnitude it isn't even funny.
> 
>   Let's not exaggerate here.  How many times is it?  100? 1000? 10000?
> 

It feels to me alot easier than debugging code all day long. I say 100. SO
I should have said a couple :) Why do you care?

> 
> |>The amount of code you need to write in C vs. C++ is about 20:1
> |>by an estimate I did last year. If you like to type alot
> |>and debug code, C is the way to go. If you liek to do the same
> |>thing over and over and over again, only slightly different, use C. 
> |>If your time is valuable, then use C++. 
> 
>   BULLSHIT!!   If you saw a 20:1 improvement, then you are an incomp-
> etent C programmer.  Do you think that C++ invented code reuse?  Ever
> used ar?  (Lib tool for PC heads.)  A good C programmer will have
> made many libraries of commononly used routines and will simply be
> able to link with his existing libs or modify code that he has lying
> around.

Actually I meant 2:1, but the delete key doesn't work with this link, 
again why do you care?

>   You write more code in C++.  You carefully craft each object in 

Actually I write less.

> the hopes that the extra time you spend today will pay off three
> months down the road if you need to use the object again.  This

Actually it begins paying off immediately.

> does not mean you can't do the same thing with C.  A good C program-
> mer, given the time, will do just that.


I am a good C programmer. Been there done that.

>   Once you start down a path of saving your code and building libraries
> for future use, a lot of your time is spent creating new libraries
> (or objects).  There is not a whole lot of difference between the
> time it takes to write C code and the time it takes to write C++
> code.  Unless you tell me that STL now has a Quake object I can derive
> a new rendering engine off. 
> 

Yawn...

>   20:1?  Where did you get that figure?  Maybe from some Microsoft
> marketing bullshit, I should imagine.
> 

2:1. Sorry if you took me so literally. Get a life.


Speaking about bullshit,  aren't you the same guy who got a visit
from the Secret Service a few years back? :)
> 
> |>-Garrett
> |>
> |>Don't look back!
> 
>   Why not?  You might be able to see that the same hype that 
> surrounds C++ has occured about other "revolutionary" concepts
> in programming in the past that never really paid off.
> 

Hype? Are you really that out of touch, or just an anachronism? My
company doesn't seem to think its hype...

-Garrett



> 
> LDDenys