Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Archived

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

Andrew Nguyen

BJARNE STROUSSUP IS EVIL!!!

This topic is 5969 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Bjarne Strousup (You know who im talking about...) is evil. I have nearlly gone crazy replacing :: and . and -> to thier rightful signs. Why couldn''t he just make -> and :: just .? I mean isntead of: foo::foo2() why cant we have foo.foo2()? and the freaking pointers and classes!!! foo->whatever ... WHY COULDNT IT JUST BE A SIMPLE .????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
well,

its not his fault really, since its just syntax..
he had to start from C language syntax, and just added
his own constructs.

anyway, even if he used other constructs, someone would
just complain again.

so whatever he used, just be patient and you will get used to it...

{ Stating the obvious never helped any situation !! }

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having . and -> is useful, as it provides another overloadable operator (useful for, for instance, smart pointer classes). Plain . can''t be overloaded, because there would be no way of differentiating between "member access" and "overloaded operator.".

As for ::, I''m not sure why you would *want* it to be replaced with .. It''s different -- it''s not member access (like . and ->), it''s scope resolution. A different idea.


In any case -- you''d have to be pretty frigging stupid to have a problem with picking the right one. The question is, why are you having to replace them -- why did you do them wrong in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
andrew: why don''t you post a link to the programming language you designed... i''d like to see how wonderful it is, since you seem to complain about every other one in existence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
very interesting... although i only read a bit, it looks like "c++ for people who don't want to learn c++"...
i will finish this tomorrow when i am at work and not spending my own time
why don't you just use that then, instead of complaining about c++?

[edited by - krez on March 17, 2002 9:57:07 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the record, it''s not exactly Bjarne Strousup "fault" there are . & ->, those are carried over from C and a primary goal of C++ was backwards compatibility (which is important in the realm of computing).

I guess you could ''blame'' :: on him...

I think there''s not enough operators, I like have unique operators for each different idea; a couple are reused and some are missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all it''s Stroustrup.

Secondly he probably just assumed a base level of intelligence for programmers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 5969 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!