ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:00 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:50 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 345
Location: The Astral Plane
Lindley wrote:
Never seen that one before. While "!=" is used in several common programming languages.

In math, "=/=" may be used when ≠ is not available. In programming, Fortran used "/=" instead of "!=".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:07 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:36 pm
Posts: 213
Really. Didn't know that. Only one I'd seen other than != is <>.

_________________
"How about I stay out of your whoring, and you stay out of my theiving."
-Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:59 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 108
Rakshasa wrote:
In math, "=/=" may be used when ≠ is not available. In programming, Fortran used "/=" instead of "!=".


you mentioned Fortran.....you have failed.

(am presently working with Natural(*shudders*) and Java)

_________________
1 post a year should be enough! everything else is excessive


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:39 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:22 pm
Posts: 362
Location: MA, USA
monberg wrote:
Rakshasa wrote:
In math, "=/=" may be used when ≠ is not available. In programming, Fortran used "/=" instead of "!=".


you mentioned Fortran.....you have failed.

(am presently working with Natural(*shudders*) and Java)


...just about everything important is cored on Fortran. It's the latin of the computer simulation discipline.

_________________
Initiated by, adopted evil minion of: Insane_Megalamanic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:48 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:29 am
Posts: 227
Location: by the river
Rakshasa wrote:
Lindley wrote:
Never seen that one before. While "!=" is used in several common programming languages.

In math, "=/=" may be used when ≠ is not available. In programming, Fortran used "/=" instead of "!=".


I have a print-out of some code from a famous British aerospace company. It is a single FORTRAN subroutine, about 50 A4 pages long. I want to know who thought computed gotos were a "good thing"? They deserve shooting.

Hands up who knows OO Fortran 90?

_________________
Shiny!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:57 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 345
Location: The Astral Plane
normalphil wrote:
...just about everything important is cored on Fortran. It's the latin of the computer simulation discipline.

And before that there was just cavemen making horny monkey sounds while throwing poop.

ri[[3r wrote:
I have a print-out of some code from a famous British aerospace company. It is a single FORTRAN subroutine, about 50 A4 pages long. I want to know who thought computed gotos were a "good thing"? They deserve shooting.

GOTO's are a good thing when used correctly, one of those being error handling. E.g the linux kernel uses it extensively in order to have a single exit path from functions when errors occur, which looks quite a lot like C++ exceptions.

ri[[3r wrote:
Hands up who knows OO Fortran 90?

*hand up, partially*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:53 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Nyon, CH, near Geneve, on the shores of the Lac Leman. The heart of Suisse Romande.
ri[[3r wrote:
Rakshasa wrote:
Lindley wrote:
Never seen that one before. While "!=" is used in several common programming languages.

In math, "=/=" may be used when ≠ is not available. In programming, Fortran used "/=" instead of "!=".


I have a print-out of some code from a famous British aerospace company. It is a single FORTRAN subroutine, about 50 A4 pages long. I want to know who thought computed gotos were a "good thing"? They deserve shooting.

Hands up who knows OO Fortran 90?


If it was Fortran 60, they could be forgiven since it wasn't until about 1963 ACM convention that Dykstra presented his definitive proof against GOTOs. Before that, it was always arguable. Then again, you didn't have good GOSUBS yet either and I-360 architecture didn't even have a stack.

There are still cases where GOTO is justifyable, usually in languages that can't throw exceptions properly. Those same languages also manage to not have a proper switch/case statement *cough*perl*cough*.

However, you are correct, in Fortran 90, it's a hanging offence.

*Refuses to raise hand because Fortran is right up there with COBOL, neither are C++, and will not admit to even being able to spell COBOL and Fortran* :wink: :-P :wink:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:56 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:29 am
Posts: 227
Location: by the river
Rakshasa wrote:
ri[[3r wrote:
I have a print-out of some code from a famous British aerospace company. It is a single FORTRAN subroutine, about 50 A4 pages long. I want to know who thought computed gotos were a "good thing"? They deserve shooting.

GOTO's are a good thing when used correctly, one of those being error handling. E.g the linux kernel uses it extensively in order to have a single exit path from functions when errors occur, which looks quite a lot like C++ exceptions.

ri[[3r wrote:
Hands up who knows OO Fortran 90?

*hand up, partially*


I used to tell my co-workers, if you use them, always go forward. No discipline, you see? Same sort of thing for *computed* gotos

IF (i) 10,20,30

GOTO (10,20,30,40,50,10) i

makes it a little more interesting. Didn't like the baggage of working out the expression everytime.

apparently, according to Google, computed gotos are deprecated in 77:)

As for the OO, I admire courage. Does the OO add much sugar to the language? One of fortran's advantages was that it was very, very fast.

_________________
Shiny!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:05 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 345
Location: The Astral Plane
ri[[3r wrote:
As for the OO, I admire courage. Does the OO add much sugar to the language? One of fortran's advantages was that it was very, very fast.

From my intro to it, it seemed to be the bare necessities required to be able to call it 'OO'. I'd imagine it to be as fast as anything similar hand-coded.

That course was a series of WTFs and the F90 OO parts could have pushed it over the edge by itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:48 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:36 pm
Posts: 213
Slamlander wrote:
*Refuses to raise hand because Fortran is right up there with COBOL, neither are C++, and will not admit to even being able to spell COBOL and Fortran* :wink: :-P :wink:


Careful, some people get touchy if you trumpet C++ too much. I don't mind it myself for the most part, but I do prefer to use only very specific portions of its non-C aspects.

_________________
"How about I stay out of your whoring, and you stay out of my theiving."
-Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:59 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Nyon, CH, near Geneve, on the shores of the Lac Leman. The heart of Suisse Romande.
Lindley wrote:
Slamlander wrote:
*Refuses to raise hand because Fortran is right up there with COBOL, neither are C++, and will not admit to even being able to spell COBOL and Fortran* :wink: :-P :wink:


Careful, some people get touchy if you trumpet C++ too much. I don't mind it myself for the most part, but I do prefer to use only very specific portions of its non-C aspects.


If the Java guys can then I can. Not enough of that is being done, actually, and I'm getting damned tired of using Java instead of a real O-O language. No multiple inheritance and Java only recently got an enum type, bah! If you want to cripple yourself by not using the langage fully, that's your personal problem but don't blame the language. Yes, I have a programming system that overlays the language.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:02 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:36 pm
Posts: 213
Gotta say, templates suck. Darn things don't even compile for custom types unless you #include the .cc at the end of the .h!

Otherwise, yeah, C++ gets an undeserved bad rap.

_________________
"How about I stay out of your whoring, and you stay out of my theiving."
-Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:14 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Nyon, CH, near Geneve, on the shores of the Lac Leman. The heart of Suisse Romande.
Lindley wrote:
Gotta say, templates suck. Darn things don't even compile for custom types unless you #include the .cc at the end of the .h!

Otherwise, yeah, C++ gets an undeserved bad rap.


Templates were a kludge for the Smalltalk programmers that couldn't get multiple inheritance right and is a work around for the incest problem (which a proper design shouldn't have anyway). My code does it right and doesn't need Templates. Think; Booch and forests of virtual base classes. :wink:

The bad rap comes from the Java snobs.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:51 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 345
Location: The Astral Plane
Slamlander wrote:
Templates were a kludge for the Smalltalk programmers that couldn't get multiple inheritance right and is a work around for the incest problem (which a proper design shouldn't have anyway). My code does it right and doesn't need Templates. Think; Booch and forests of virtual base classes. :wink:

I take issues with your insinuation that I'm a master of incest.

First, virtual functions can never be as fast as inline or direct function calls. Templates allow the compiler to optimize, sometimes so aggressively you only end up with constants, any weird stuff you might want to do. And they often work on any types matching certain criteria.

Contrast this to virtual base classes where even constants related to the instance must be retrieved through virtual calls, and the type system is much less flexible.

Also, templates are so much more than the standard containers... Look at the STL algorithms for real beauty.

It's nice that your code is perfect, just don't try to live in an imperfect world.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:41 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Nyon, CH, near Geneve, on the shores of the Lac Leman. The heart of Suisse Romande.
Rakshasa wrote:
Slamlander wrote:
Templates were a kludge for the Smalltalk programmers that couldn't get multiple inheritance right and is a work around for the incest problem (which a proper design shouldn't have anyway). My code does it right and doesn't need Templates. Think; Booch and forests of virtual base classes. :wink:

I take issues with your insinuation that I'm a master of incest.

First, virtual functions can never be as fast as inline or direct function calls. Templates allow the compiler to optimize, sometimes so aggressively you only end up with constants, any weird stuff you might want to do. And they often work on any types matching certain criteria.

Contrast this to virtual base classes where even constants related to the instance must be retrieved through virtual calls, and the type system is much less flexible.

Also, templates are so much more than the standard containers... Look at the STL algorithms for real beauty.

It's nice that your code is perfect, just don't try to live in an imperfect world.


I'll only make one point to this and then agree. Even virtual base classes are faster than Java, which is strictly interpretive (setting aside gjc for the moment). :wink:

My point is that Templates can be as abused as macros, maybe more than.

My code is only that way because I was using C++ way long before there were Templates (which Stroustrup only grudgingly added, BTW) and actualy understood virtual base classes in gruesome detail. Yes, there are issues there, usually due to compiler implementation structures and yes, an optimizing compiler only partially counters those issues.

Yes, I do live with Templates. I just don't use them any more than I have to and if it's still faster than equivalent Java code then multiply nested virtual base classes are still better than templates. :-P

But now I'm being a real purist and I detest that. I won't knock anyone for using templates and they are a legitimate part of the language. Holding forth against them makes the purist as snobbish as the Java-Heads are. We are only talking personal style choices here.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:07 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 345
Location: The Astral Plane
Slamlander wrote:
Yes, I do live with Templates. I just don't use them any more than I have to and if it's still faster than equivalent Java code then multiply nested virtual base classes are still better than templates. :-P

But now I'm being a real purist and I detest that. I won't knock anyone for using templates and they are a legitimate part of the language. Holding forth against them makes the purist as snobbish as the Java-Heads are. We are only talking personal style choices here.

I fail to see where Java came into the discussion, this was about _real_ programming languages, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:28 pm 
Offline
n00b

Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:06 pm
Posts: 3
Hehehe.

I'll admit that I understand programming (in C++, FORTRAN 90, and Java) about as well as I understand Spanish. Which is to say I can understand a fair bit of what I read, get the gist of a fair bit more, and actually produce it on the equivalent of a 3rd grad level. More or less. Sadly, my university didn't have a good intro class in programming languages, such that the only way to *really* get a strong grasp very nearly amounted to minoring in computer science. Since my undergrad major already functionally required a minor in mathematics, and I chose another one that I was interested in, I was kinda left dry.

Not that most "grown-up" physicists don't get buy by modifying old code they have lying around from something similar that someone else in the collaboration threw together for them a couple of years back.

So, anyway, this whole thread is really fun to me, in a surrealistically amusing kind of way, because I don't understand just enough to make it even more funny. Please, carry on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:02 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Nyon, CH, near Geneve, on the shores of the Lac Leman. The heart of Suisse Romande.
Rakshasa wrote:
Slamlander wrote:
Yes, I do live with Templates. I just don't use them any more than I have to and if it's still faster than equivalent Java code then multiply nested virtual base classes are still better than templates. :-P

But now I'm being a real purist and I detest that. I won't knock anyone for using templates and they are a legitimate part of the language. Holding forth against them makes the purist as snobbish as the Java-Heads are. We are only talking personal style choices here.

I fail to see where Java came into the discussion, this was about _real_ programming languages, right?


:-D :-D :-) :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That was good. But on this side of the small pond, They've bought into Java in a big way and the Java-heads have gone and relabeled everything into their own object-oriented jargon or Javanese (UML, JNI, SWING, etc). Pisses me off, it does! Even if you do a real programming language, you have to speak Javanese and it's limited concepts. Oh, and they like to dictate coding style too. Need I say that I'm from the GNU school, before there was a GNU school? Look at sendmail, my style looks exactly like that. Java-heads have issues with it. They keep telling me it looks too much like C++, like that's a bad thing :roll:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:15 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:23 am
Posts: 490
Location: none
I have no idea why my college's Computer Science department is trying to teach programming in Java... For a while, the Computer Engineering department tried to use it too, but eventually they wound up creating their own C++ classes...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:42 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Nyon, CH, near Geneve, on the shores of the Lac Leman. The heart of Suisse Romande.
BloodHenge wrote:
I have no idea why my college's Computer Science department is trying to teach programming in Java... For a while, the Computer Engineering department tried to use it too, but eventually they wound up creating their own C++ classes...


Now that's sad! Java, at best, is a subset of O-O programming ... by their own admission! As such, it is totally inappropriate for CS and CE curriculums, except for showing what the commercial sector is doing.

I guess the new rookies will be dumber than the last batch :evil:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group