Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Andrew Nguyen

Pointer are unnifficient

Recommended Posts

All BCPL/ALGOL are great. But, their is a problem with them. Pointers. They suck, are unneeded, but... the creators did not use string heavy machines, so did not find a reason to rid of pointers. Heck, in other languages, I can do what a pointer does in less code! yes, I am saying that pointers are stupid. Most of you will say that pointers are useful, but, in my opinion, they are useful because they are used to go AROUND BCPL/ALGOL based language''s limitations. In plenty of languages, I have rarely seen pointers used. But, I will say that pointers also confuse new users. They confuse and too omplicated. Now, then, my grammar may be bad, but I can still catch rebuttals. One is that ''Well, why don''t you change it yourself?'' well, I''m just stating an idea. I don''t have to do so. And for you idiots who would make fun without a good reason, please, save your crap for another topic. Now then, how do redo pointers? Rid of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Are you angry because you''re ignorant, or ignorant due to
your anger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep pointers are a bit confusing for new users. I personally like them, not because they are better or worse, just the way I code. So if you dont like them, dont use them, there are alternatives to using them. Happy New Year!



Grellin - CGP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmmm.
i dont know what to say -mainly because im not sure what BCPL/ALGOL is.
i havent been able to make much since of your first paragraph.

yes, your enlish grammer and spelling are bad (look up: their, there, they''re).

Pointers only confuse learners if they are really new to programming.

Unless the language heavily wraps pointer stuff, there are simply too many things that cant be done (easily) without them.
Asm uses them like mad.
if a language supports pointers, then its probably intended to be an interface to low level stuff, like addresses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can understand pointer to direct numbers, or characters, and if they are in a CHAR mode, BUT when you have a pointer for a pointer, that's when I get annoyed. Just put a name to a memory address and there, no other pointers needed! I find it annoying when readin code when people point to points to points! It's stupid and dumb, but I see it all the time.
EDIT:
Also, BCPL is the predesccor(sp) to B, C, C++,C*,C# an so on.
ALGOL heavilly influenced BCPL.



Edited by - Andrew Nguyen on December 31, 2001 10:15:21 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can''t have a systems programming language without some form of memory address variable. In assembly all your data is in registers, which are memory addresses but are usually dereferenced to access the contents at those addresses. You can''t have dynamic memory allocation without pointers at the base level either.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but this isn''t a message to say "DONT USE POINTERS" but a post to say, "Use pointers only when needed or else people think you''re programming in perl". That was my message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
people do only use pointers when needed. and, it so happens, that programs need them often; the most effecient programs are goinu use pointers.

points to points are important. for instance, how do you make a dynamic array of strings without **?

Edited by - evilcrap on December 31, 2001 10:36:27 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why send things like structs all over the place when you can store them in one location and just point to them. I think you should buy a book and really try to understand when to use pointers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your later posts seem to contradict your thread starting post.

-----------------------
0wn 0wn 0wn your goat
gently down the pw33n

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Maximus
Your later posts seem to contradict your thread starting post.



My thoughts exactly.


quote:
Original post by Andrew Nguyen
Now then, how do redo pointers? Rid of them.



quote:
Original post by Andrew Nguyen
Yes, but this isn''t a message to say "DONT USE POINTERS" but a post to say, "Use pointers only when needed or else people think you''re programming in perl". That was my message.



If you say get rid of pointers, I interpret it as not using them. Of coures, that could be just me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A pointer to a pointer is called a HANDLE, I think you''ll find that you are VERY common and VERY useful. Sometimes indices are used in-place of an actual memory address, but it''s still considered a handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct me if I''m wrong, but your problem with pointers seems to be that they make code confusing. Agreed, A->Z->F->WhatTheHellIsThisHereForAnyways->SomeRandomClass is what a lot of it ends up looking like, but is that the pointers fault? No! That''s the fault of the programmer who seems to enjoy writing insanly complicated code in hopes that no one else steals it. It''s kind of like that one dumb saying that everyone keeps using. "Guns don''t kill people, People kill people." Um... yeah... make up your own analogy there. I''ve used up my brain power alotment for the day. ^_^

-----------------------------

Vash the Stampede

"Love & Peace!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly you shouldn''t be telling people what they should/shouldn''t code like. Every programmer has a style that they develop from both personal, and professional experiance. Habbits that are introduced from work or that are picked up by reading others code. However this usualy develops over time due to nessassity or being told by someone with much more experiance than yourself that "Coding like this is bad". As the coder develops his style, he also improves his coding habbits and develops into a better programmer. This is all a time issue. Just like learning pointers takes time. Developing a coding style that is both efficent and understandable to others takes time. This a place of learning, you can obviously expect the code presented here to be consistantly in some sage of development.

My advice to you Andrew, is to stop going around telling people what you think is right/wrong in coding but instead implement it yourself. Possibly present your solution to the community in a way which will not start a flame war. Opening your comments with "Pointers suck" does not accomplish your goal of being taken seriously.

In the end it''s not your decision what other programmers decide to do/not do. So don''t take this thing so damn personaly. Present your case, give good reasons why you think it is better, and let the rest of the people who read it decide for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a question. I''ve always used pointers to keep from chewing up vast amounts of memory bandwidth passing data from function to function, etc. How is this inefficient?


----
Herb M. (mdfmKoRn)
www.sky-meyg.com
s3202@attbi.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites