"Object-Oriented" means different thing to different people. It's an abused term, so many people talk about this as if they know what it's all about.
The truth: there's no solid definition of what "object-oriented" is all about, so let's stop talking about this, all you liars.
"The fact that you hate them doesn't make them useless. Consider a device control register where flipping a bit in one register changes the meaning of another register. The alternative is ugly pointers."
This argument is entirely wrong.
What changing the value in registers have something to do with variant record?
You write "The problem is that the most popular (by volume) processors today are using a machine language that was not designed to be compiler friendly. "
What do you mean "compiler friendly"?
One of the good (and simple) things that can be done is make assembly language more friendly (more human?). Assembly language is close to machine language, and we can make improvement.
As examples of simple things that can make low-level programming easier (and more human)
JUMP, not JMP
MOVE (or COPY), not MOV
Why does the assembly language designers are so sick, feel joy in torturing people/programmers?
I agree that it's computer that should work for human, not the other way around. And even for low-level programming, we can make a better world.
Hey language designers, don't torture anyone with just a few characters saved. It save keystrokes, but it hurts your brain.
Not quite.
Too many people out there hiding the implementation of compiler. Don't think grammar is a big help in implementing compiler.
Open source is not open source of the grammar,
it's the open source of the semantic action,
the intermediate code generator, code optimizer, and executable code generator.
I agree totally.
Hungarian style hinders too much than it helps.
When my programmers tried to do something like that style, the code become just too cumbersome.
The code is hard to read by its partner.
I objected, and try different style, much simpler.
The result is more readable code, every programmer can read their peer's code more easily.
Ok, k may be really fast.
But do your colleagues really fast in reading it?
In real software development, does anyone solely create software? No, nowadays software develop-
ment takes hundreds of developers.
Not at all.
C++ is a terribly bad language.
Every C++ teacher just dumbs people with saying
like this
my_type::mytype()
They never quite explain
(*) What first my_type stands for
(*) What the second my_type stands for?
(*) Is the:: necessary ?
Why do you put const for type declaration ?
Too much to tell.
Put it simply, C++ is one of the worst programming language on earth.
I don't agree that functional language will bring anything better; but I do agree that Open Source is not (YET0 brave enough to venture a completely
new territory.
They seem all to be a preacher of 'nasty' languages like C, C++, Java, and Perl.
Slashdot Mirror
"Object-Oriented" means different thing to different people. It's an abused term, so many people talk about this as if they know what it's all about. The truth: there's no solid definition of what "object-oriented" is all about, so let's stop talking about this, all you liars.
Those magic 'this' is actually a devil.
"The fact that you hate them doesn't make them useless. Consider a device control register where flipping a bit in one register changes the meaning of another register. The alternative is ugly pointers." This argument is entirely wrong. What changing the value in registers have something to do with variant record?
You write "The problem is that the most popular (by volume) processors today are using a machine language that was not designed to be compiler friendly. " What do you mean "compiler friendly"? One of the good (and simple) things that can be done is make assembly language more friendly (more human?). Assembly language is close to machine language, and we can make improvement. As examples of simple things that can make low-level programming easier (and more human) JUMP, not JMP MOVE (or COPY), not MOV Why does the assembly language designers are so sick, feel joy in torturing people/programmers? I agree that it's computer that should work for human, not the other way around. And even for low-level programming, we can make a better world. Hey language designers, don't torture anyone with just a few characters saved. It save keystrokes, but it hurts your brain.
Not quite. Too many people out there hiding the implementation of compiler. Don't think grammar is a big help in implementing compiler. Open source is not open source of the grammar, it's the open source of the semantic action, the intermediate code generator, code optimizer, and executable code generator.
I agree totally. Hungarian style hinders too much than it helps. When my programmers tried to do something like that style, the code become just too cumbersome. The code is hard to read by its partner. I objected, and try different style, much simpler. The result is more readable code, every programmer can read their peer's code more easily.
Hey man, tell me how can you return a struct (not a pointer to a struct) in C ? you must be kidding.
Ok, k may be really fast. But do your colleagues really fast in reading it? In real software development, does anyone solely create software? No, nowadays software develop- ment takes hundreds of developers.
Agreed. No technical excellence new in Java.
Not at all. C++ is a terribly bad language. Every C++ teacher just dumbs people with saying like this my_type::mytype() They never quite explain (*) What first my_type stands for (*) What the second my_type stands for? (*) Is the :: necessary ?
Why do you put const for type declaration ?
Too much to tell.
Put it simply, C++ is one of the worst programming language on earth.
I don't agree that functional language will bring anything better; but I do agree that Open Source is not (YET0 brave enough to venture a completely new territory. They seem all to be a preacher of 'nasty' languages like C, C++, Java, and Perl.
I totally agree with this comment. it's a good point. Anyone who opposes this point just did not learn from history.