BJARNE STROUSSUP IS EVIL!!!
Author
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 .????
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 !! }
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 !! }
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?
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?
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...
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]
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]
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.
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.
First of all it''s Stroustrup.
Secondly he probably just assumed a base level of intelligence for programmers.
Secondly he probably just assumed a base level of intelligence for programmers.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
