organizing stuff in a wad

[Fredrik]

Lack of pointers is inflexibility? While I'm willing to understand that (I know some languages that are a pain to use because of it), it just doesn't apply to all languages. In Python, for example, everything is a pointer/reference, with the difference from C/C++ that you never have to malloc/new/free/dereference/even care. The list and dict types/classes make most pure pointer structures obsolete.

Ok, you say, let's choose something that has pointers and is high level. But in that case I'd prefer to continue working with C++. With a decent framework there is absolutely no need to do the grunt work over and over again but i case I have to to something out of the ordinary I know I can do it.

Absolutely true. But what prevents this imaginary high-level language from having a decent framework? In the case of Python, I believe it does have one. At least for the uses I've encountered so far.

[Julian]

deep, I like to see you around here. I usually find you're insightful even if your "IM RIGHT DAMMIT" attitude can be a little irritating.
All I see in this thread is a badly executed trolling session. It worked only because fred also has this "IM RIGHT DAMMIT" attitude.
*I* am a veteran coder. And as such, I don't even need to comment on your argumentation since it is so biased it reminds me of a famous italian tower. And I don't see how someone with your background couldn't be aware of it.
I urge you to come back to your senses and I'll consider you've been bored or something. And yes, this is a threat.

[Graf Zahl]

Fredrik said:

In Python, for example, everything is a pointer/reference, with the difference from C/C++ that you never have to malloc/new/free/dereference/even care.

I'd call this 'taking away control'. For small tools this might be ok (and I don't hesitate to use static objects for this in C++) but for complex applications that have to be conscious of their memory usage it's a pure nightmare! It's just another case of limiting the options for the sake of 'robustness' and I just don't like it.

Absolutely true. But what prevents this imaginary high-level language from having a decent framework?

Nothing! But what prevents C++ from having one? It's just not part of the language but would be an additional library but the end result is the same in the worst case (in case there is little customizability) and something much more powerful if done right.

[pritch]

Aww, Jules, don't stop them, I was enjoying this one :\

[deep]

The Merovingian said:
All I see in this thread is a badly executed trolling session.

Please, let's get real. I never troll in the sense of what you imply with that word (and never have - despite your impressions). Having a discussion/argument is not the same as trolling. IOW it's your own prejudice at work here. (Btw, my comments are identical to Graf's).

Sure I'm biased towards C/C++, just like I used be biased towards ASM before C/C++ came out (for exactly the same reasons as Graf). I've taught several college and industrial classes on this very topic, even teaching languanges I don't use or care for. IOW, I really don't care what language one uses. It all boils down to one's skill level with whatever language fits one's mind.

[Julian]

deep said:
Please, let's get real. I never troll in the sense of what you imply with that word (and never have - despite your impressions). Having a discussion/argument is not the same as trolling. IOW it's your own prejudice at work here. (Btw, my comments are identical to Graf's).

I see no prejudice: you're the one always talking about it when you don't want to inspect your own behavior: "Julian makes a remark, how about I put it on our old (VERY old indeed) dispute?".

deep said:
Sure I'm biased towards C/C++, just like I used be biased towards ASM before C/C++ came out (for exactly the same reasons as Graf). I've taught several college and industrial classes on this very topic, even teaching languanges I don't use or care for. IOW, I really don't care what language one uses. It all boils down to one's skill level with whatever language fits one's mind.

I myself used to teach a lot of different languages. I agree to a certain level with your opinion (even if I know pointers are of no use if you have a decent level of genericity and a reference system - nothing but a protected pointer system after all. Pointer arythmetic is simply irrelevant in most cases. I think many people want it simply because they are used to it, myself included).

Anyway, this is not the start of the conversation AT ALL. You took the conversation off-track (with the help of fredrik, I won't argue on this). So please, get it back on track and stop this childish fight. You're better than this I'm sure.

[deep]

I didn't take it off track, Fred did. And I made a pointed comment about that several times. Read.

Posting on forum is for people that enjoy debating. It may not be you, but that's all we are doing. Don't judge what you yourself may not enjoy. I doubt Fred or Graf is all distraught. As you noted, it's the type of personalities we have. We don't mind getting our hair messed up.

I'm not the one doing the pointer argument. I left it alone. I was done with this topic when I said I was (only your comment revived my interest). Even though I could uniquely and succinctly debate the "pointer" argument. I'm not going to here, but merely point out that some segments of coding must work with pointers. The other big benefit is speed. Probably all ASM coders are much more influenced by pointer style stuff then programmer who never got their feet wet for 10 years doing nothing but ASM.

As far as the past: to me that's a clear misinterpretation that you insisted on perpetuating. Can't help you there. You should believe me when I tell you that was not the intent. That's all I can do from this far away.

[Julian]

I certainly enjoy debates. But for the kind of "conversation" you have with fred, I'd advise to use email. This is a forum, not a ring. Cock fights are not welcome here.

About pointers, you seem very oldschool to me. Only system programming may require low-level access to memory (at a very few point that is). You'd be surprised to see where the compiling community is at now both in terms of abstraction and optimization (would it be algorithmic or low-level). Nowadays, speed is rather a question of good structure and algo then of low-level trickery.
That being said, I'm oldschool too and, despise obvious proofs, I have hard times trusting the compiler, let along a foreign library. So I generally end up toying with pointers with quite a good idea of what the asm will look like. However, I'm convinced it's a bad habit. I guess I'm old.

[deep]

Well, if you decide that any debate is a "cock fight", that's a very narrow view of forum posting. I don't have a problem with that IF ALL people here conform to the same rules. And that is obviously not true. Fred is the one that should have been admonished if you had a need to do this.

"Old school" is a slanted way to argue (and you are arguing/debating right?). First off, it's a subjective denigration (not useful in a factual debate), secondly it's like saying that basic concepts are now invalid.

Yes, systems programming requires pointers (I was a systems programmer for 18 years). AND do embedded programming - also requires pointer code - requires a different mindset vs PC stuff, memory is not unlimited, no OS to help me.

One has to be aware that many statements are bound by one's environment and not inherently true. Experience counts for everyone (regardless of education level). And that takes time to discover.

[Julian]

Let's call this a misunderstanding.

[Torn]

The Merovingian said:

Let's call this a misunderstanding.

heh.

[Espi]

Heh indeed

[læmænt]

heh

[fraggle]

hmm, heh

[RusseII]

heh

and this all started from a thread named 'organizing stuff in a wad'...