Wolfire Games Forums

I use TI-83+ BASIC Variant, because the interface makes my hands cramp.

the only reason I can find for C++ is polymorphism. Other than that, I find that it's an overhyped bloated language.
And libstdc++ is crap... why write a string class when you can just use functions? char * IS the basic string-I want to be able to just write it via fwrite. none of that cout << business. "<<" doesn't even have anything to do with output!
C++ has a place. Just not in my heart.

Fournine wrote:I use TI-83+ BASIC Variant, because the interface makes my hands cramp.

TI programming can be fun. I remember corrupting half a room-full of physics students into competing on some silly TI program during optics courses.

I have a dream that, one day, a telescope will fail thanks to my efforts.

Nayr wrote:the only reason I can find for C++ is polymorphism. Other than that, I find that it's an overhyped bloated language.

How about object oriented programming? Not everything you are going to do is going to be able to be done with strictly primitive data types. Using PhoenixUI as an example, how would you even begin to write that without the OO paradigm and code reuse?

If you ever attempt to write code for the mac (maybe you already do, I don't know), take a look at carbon. I use cocoa when I do guis, but it's a nice example.
You don't have to use C++ to do OO. C can do it to. the difference:
pretty simple. C++ makes it more streamlined, and adds some bells and whistles, such as operator overloading, to make it look prettier.

[edit]I also have a way of doing polymorphism in C, but it's kinda complicated. Basically: you leave a void pointer at the end of each struct, where data for 'subclasses' can be used.[/edit]

The C++ standard library is really pretty amazing; I have only recently started using it regularly, and it makes life a lot easier.

Nayr wrote: You don't have to use C++ to do OO. C can do it to. the difference:

Code: Select all

//blah blah blah...
ObjectPtr obj;
int err = ObjectDoSomethingWithObj(obj, arg1, arg2);
err = ObjectFree(obj);

pretty simple. C++ makes it more streamlined, and adds some bells and whistles, such as operator overloading, to make it look prettier.

That's obviously just a small part of OO

well, I was only aiming for a small example.

Basically: I feel as if everything c++ offers is either useless to me, or can be implemented in C. Others feel differently; to each his own.

I agree if you're doing all yourself, but some libraries are C++ only, so.. If you want to reuse that code, you have to at least talk with those libraries in C++.

And implementing all and everything by yourself is a big waste of time since many many things have already been implemented and failproofed by others. That's at least true for complicated things (like sorting and en-/decrypting stuff) and huge tasks (like using EAX for your newest DVD-Player-app).

I partly don't like C++ because the code often looks messy.

Nayr wrote:If you ever attempt to write code for the mac (maybe you already do, I don't know), take a look at carbon. I use cocoa when I do guis, but it's a nice example.
You don't have to use C++ to do OO. C can do it to. the difference:

Code: Select all

//blah blah blah...
ObjectPtr obj;
int err = ObjectDoSomethingWithObj(obj, arg1, arg2);
err = ObjectFree(obj);

pretty simple. C++ makes it more streamlined, and adds some bells and whistles, such as operator overloading, to make it look prettier.

[edit]I also have a way of doing polymorphism in C, but it's kinda complicated. Basically: you leave a void pointer at the end of each struct, where data for 'subclasses' can be used.[/edit]

Cocoa is most commonly used with Obj-C. The problem there is that Obj-C has limited platform support, and Cocoa has none (except Mac, ofcourse).

You can fake an OO paradigm with C using structs and pointers to functions, but really, why bother?

_Nik

My programming language is über-simplified python in the form of "Guido van Robot" in computers classes... It's driving me out of my mind, the boolean statements don't bloody work, and it's just incredibly limited.

Mind you, I am still like five classes ahead. Heh.

GreenAlge wrote:Cocoa is most commonly used with Obj-C. The problem there is that Obj-C has limited platform support, and Cocoa has none (except Mac, ofcourse).

You can fake an OO paradigm with C using structs and pointers to functions, but really, why bother?

_Nik

First off, cocoa can ONLY be used with obj-c, unless it is wrapped into C (see SDL for mac os x).
Second why would i ever want to program for anything but macosx, or perhaps linux? (and for linux, there's limited support for cocoa via. gnustep).
Thirdly, I need polymorphism for my raytracer, which is why I used c++, and now use C, via the polymorphic method I described earlier.

why would i ever want to program for anything but macosx, or perhaps linux? (and for linux, there's limited support for cocoa via. gnustep).

Because you will get many more sales of whatever your program is if you port it to Windows.

I'm not in it for the money. Plus, developing for means using... much to painful of an experience. No, I'm not joking. I could never live without my quicksilver, my terminal.app, my gcc, my itunes, my camino, etc.

quicksilver is the best thing ever.