| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Comments:
<0> why not?
<1> if you're a beginner, there's no reason to care
<2> you planning on writing some standard libraries some day?
<1> and it's likely beyond your comprehension anyway
<2> georg79 do you have a license to drive an automobile?
<0> if you ever want to do low level manipulation you should
<0> i'm not an automobile engineer
<2> that's NOT for newbies
<2> but you drive, right??
<0> that's like comparing a programmer to an end user
<0> the end user doesnt need to know how the program works
<2> as far as C++ is concerned, you ARE an end user
<0> but the programmer should know what his own program is doing
<1> there's (in a very general sense) two types of programmers: system, and application
<0> THIS is why there is a lack of good c/c++ programmers
<1> there should be no such thing as a "C/C++" programmer
<2> what is why? that you insist on knowing every detail of how the computer makes your program run?
<2> I agree, you're bogged down in useless details
<0> if you are a programmer as a profession, you should strive to know as much as possible about it
<2> yes, learn it at the proper time
<1> newbies aren't programmers yet
<2> and it's for damned sure that arrays don't come as early as that tutorial gets to them
<0> it's good to learn early on, just as it's easier for young kids to learn languages before they are too set on a certain set of rules
<2> you aren't listening
<2> vector and string are more abstract than array
<0> exactly so why is learning that first better?
<0> seems like it should be the other way around
<0> work from the ground up
<2> because you're not bogged down it ****ing details
<2> that's why you design from the bottom up? not this programmer
<0> in an ideal world ***embly would be the first thing you learn so you know whats going on
<2> you're on drugs
<1> i wouldn't call that ideal at all
<3> haha
<2> that's how I learned because WHEN I learned, that's all we had
<3> Maybe by your second year you'd be able to write a useful program, yay.
<2> I'm _telling_ you that youj've got it backwards
<1> barely anyone - save for compiler writers and hardcore system programmers - writes any ***embly
<0> learning ***embly is more about understanding the computer rather than being able to write huge programs
<1> times have changed. grow up
<2> georg79 you planning on building computers?
<0> ***embly programming and hardware design are separate components
<2> have you ever done either for a living?
<0> not for a living, no, and how does that factor into this?
<2> and you are sorely mistaken if you think you can design a _good_ piece of hardware if you haven't programmed
<0> i didn't say that
<0> i said they're separate components
<0> i know you should know how to program your own hardware
<2> so is oxygen and nitrogen, but try doing without one of them for a while
<0> but you don't have to know how to build the hardware just because you can program it
<2> no, you should know how to program LOTS of hardware before you inflict your design on the programmers
<1> just like you don't have to know about arrays and memory location to be able to maintain and work with "containers of things" in C++
<1> s/location/allocation/
<0> hardware and software are two different components, arrays/containers are part of the same system
<0> one's just more abstract
<2> georg79 wrong again <sigh>
<0> and you shouldn't learn the abstract component first
<2> what makes "hardware" and "software" different components
<1> high level languages and constructs allow much higher productivity
<2> georg79 you don't think you should learn the concepts 1st?
<1> and most programmers and businesses just want to 'get **** done'
<0> software is stored on some medium and executes certain hardware functionality
<4> sorry dudes for my state of mind
<2> georg79 and what about the software in the ROM that makes the hardware actually execute the instructions
<0> hardware can be functional without software
<2> bull****
<5> vaw: there's no crisp line
<2> not these days, sonny
<2> pooyazv I'm aware of that
<5> actually that can be called firmware
<2> and often is
<0> well, i think it's a nice tutorial to get started on
<2> georg79 we don't, and we know a LOT more C++ than you
<1> georg79 have you ever been a C++ programmer as a job?
<5> and i know a LOT less C++ than u all (jks) :p
<0> i do multiple languages at my job
<1> that wasn't the question
<5> vaw: C++ is more like a kinda science than something commercial
<0> i've done some c++
<1> it has to be real C++, not "C/C++"
<0> but that's not the majority
<6> (note the quotes in '"C/C++"')
<2> pooyazv it's not clear where to cl***ify computer languages
<2> lo, _m_ how's it going?
<6> not bad.
<5> vaw: yea but actually IDE is the commercial aspect not the language
<6> not great, either.
<0> i think it's good to learn c before c++ as well
<1> bzz
<1> completely different ways of thinking (between C and C++)
<0> exactly
<1> and it doesn't help to learn C first - hardly any of it applies to C++
<0> if it was the same what would be the point
<5> rdrag: i agree:d
<1> georg79 that's like saying it's good to learn how to swim before riding a bike
<0> a lot of it does rdragon, it's just masked, like the char arrays and memory management
<1> it doesn't make any sense
<1> i rarely deal with character arrays and/or memory management in C++
<1> bare pointers are getting rarer, too
<5> rdrag: yea that's how it's supposed to be to the programmer but how is it implemeneted really?
<1> it's not implemented in C
<1> and how it's implemented is not something I have to care about
<5> well definitely yes but isn't it somewhat c-related?
<1> no
<2> georg79 C before C++ ???? why struggle w/ all the idiocies of C
<2> C++ is a FAR better language
<0> because it's lower level
<5> knowing how ur compiler works is very important of course
<0> so it fits my model
<1> pooyazv I have no idea what language my compiler was written in, but I bet most of it was not written in C
<1> even if it was, it wouldn't matter
<7> hm, it'd probably be better if it was..
<1> doubtful
<2> anonimasu why?
<5> well definitely it can't have but also it can't have been written in anything but C, c++ or ***embly code
<2> C is a vastly overrrated language
<3> because C is awesome and fast remember
<1> the compiler implements the C++ standard - it could be written in SpecialLanguage5000 for all I care
<2> and always has been
<1> pooyazv why not?
<1> pooyazv often compilers are written in the language that they compile
<5> well theoretically it can
<5> but in practice i dun think anyone does that
<2> pooyazv why not?
<5> when someone knows C++ that well he/she will definitely use C++ :D
<1> i don't see why compilers can only be written in C, C++ and/or ASM
<7> vawjrwrk: because writing asm is a hell, and time could be better spent on optimizing it to be flawless..
<2> the pascal compiler I did was written Pascal, the C compiler we had as written in C
<7> it dosent really matter though.
<5> yes actually in implementing compilers there are three independant languages
<5> host, source, dest.
<2> the BCPL compiler was in BCPL... the FORTRAN was NOT writen in FORTRAN though, lol
<1> that's a completely unrelated statement, pooyazv
<5> ok sorry:D
<7> hehe
<7> figures :)
<1> anyway - learn vectors before arrays.
<6> Java compilers have been written in Java. Many other compilers have been written in various functional programming languages.
<4> fix pc before doing anything
<5> and then turn it on
<4> then install Linux
<1> some should never get to turning it on
<5> or freebsd for more comfort
<4> or something else that works
<5> i guess minix is good
<4> i can tell you from very very fresh experience
<4> WINDOZE ****S!
<1> are we really going to start that argument?
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
haqq is-suwed
#chatzone
caiwhiqk
#AllNiteCafe
#MissKitten
terminal.c undefined reference to `tputs'
#chatzone
bluints
vampir3 chatzone
tedi nick
|
|