W
WW
Noah said:And yes, my compiler will also eat Java
Mine too, put then it pukes it out.
Mine too, put then it pukes it out.
J
John L Fjellstad
The_Sage said:
Here is a list from Microsoft of features in the standard that is not
supported in Visual Studio .NET 2003:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
url=/library/en-us/vclang/html/vclrfnonstandardbehavior.asp
A
Agent Mulder
WW said:
I was more thinking like reselling NotePad with "C++ Compiler"
written on the box ;-)
-X
G
Gary Labowitz
[snip}
Oh, yes. And BTW, has The Sage ever posted here his actual name? Is he (or
could be she) willing to put the real world wise to the nonsense being
adhered to? I would suggest that he/she post his/her real name so hiring
managers would have all this wonderful input when making a hiring decision.
Are you willing to do that TheSage? Or are you too chicken to do it? I guess
it would indicate that you actually know you are full of misinformation and
would be ashamed for others to know it.
[Of course, any name posted could be bogus.....]
Oh, yes. And BTW, has The Sage ever posted here his actual name? Is he (or
could be she) willing to put the real world wise to the nonsense being
adhered to? I would suggest that he/she post his/her real name so hiring
managers would have all this wonderful input when making a hiring decision.
Are you willing to do that TheSage? Or are you too chicken to do it? I guess
it would indicate that you actually know you are full of misinformation and
would be ashamed for others to know it.
[Of course, any name posted could be bogus.....]
W
WW
Gary Labowitz wrote:
[snip}
Do you know what is *really* sad? That in our "wonderful world" morons get
the opportunity to learn programming and post nonsense to the USENET and
keep others busy with endless arguments - all they needed to "do" is to be
born in the right country. For The Sage it was the US. Then mom and dad
buys him the internet from Cox Networks, a computer, the Forte Free Agent
newsreader so that he can download yEncoded porn from some newsgroups and
post crap into others one.
While there can be literally thousands of very bright children in Africa
(and in other places the "Rich World" does not give a damn about) who will
never get the chance to even learn to read! The next Einstein possibly dies
by starvation right now somewhere in a troubled country. Or being trained
as a child soldier and have a hoplessly broken mind for all his life. While
people, like our troll, who has not been able to show that he/she is worth
the food he/she eats can freely rant and have fun. I am no nazy, but I
would rather give his/her food to a starwing African and send him/her to
kill - as he/she is already wasting his/her life.
[snip}
Do you know what is *really* sad? That in our "wonderful world" morons get
the opportunity to learn programming and post nonsense to the USENET and
keep others busy with endless arguments - all they needed to "do" is to be
born in the right country. For The Sage it was the US. Then mom and dad
buys him the internet from Cox Networks, a computer, the Forte Free Agent
newsreader so that he can download yEncoded porn from some newsgroups and
post crap into others one.
While there can be literally thousands of very bright children in Africa
(and in other places the "Rich World" does not give a damn about) who will
never get the chance to even learn to read! The next Einstein possibly dies
by starvation right now somewhere in a troubled country. Or being trained
as a child soldier and have a hoplessly broken mind for all his life. While
people, like our troll, who has not been able to show that he/she is worth
the food he/she eats can freely rant and have fun. I am no nazy, but I
would rather give his/her food to a starwing African and send him/her to
kill - as he/she is already wasting his/her life.
R
Randall Hyde
David B. Held said:Wow. I didn't see this one. That is really funny! Although, technically,
I do believe that you could argue this for a suitable definition of
"hidden code". For instance, the compiler is allowed to recognize
calls to ostream:
them in any way it sees fit, including inserting the appropriate machine
code without referring to any libraries. But I doubt Ol' Tumbleweed
would be able to make this argument.
The whole argument began when he posted that C++ programs
require 1/nth (pick your favorite n, he's used a couple) times fewer
the lines of code than assembly language and backed up his "assertion"
with some DOS/x86 program that proved this. When I called him on
that and said "modern assemblers like HLA (the High Level Assembler)
don't require this kind of effort, and posted the following HLA code
program HelloWorld;
#include( "stdlib.hhf" )
begin HelloWorld;
stdout.put( "Hello World" nl );
end HelloWorld;
He immediately went into tirades about how I was "hiding" the
real code behind this "stdout.put" function (which is actually a macro,
truth be known). His assertion is that there was no such "hidden"
code in the C++ example he gave. I thought this was rather amusing.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
P.S., despite TS' claims the contrary, I know of no C or C++ compiler
that accepts HLA source code. Often he has accused me of posting C
code when I've posted HLA code, so his little problems with Standard
C++ are *nothing* compared to his confusing HLA and C code
W
WW
John said:
This only lists where MS C++ does not do something the standard requires.
It does not list extensions.
G
Greg Comeau
It does not even do that, though it is clearly sufficient
to dispell the notion that that MS C++ is conforming.
This is really outdated now, but for just a very partial list,
which we produced to document the "Microsoft mode" of Comeau C/C++
see http://www.comeaucomputing.com/features.html and have your
browser search for Microsoft mode.
A
Alexander Terekhov
:
[...]
You can't have it both ways. (C) stuff can't be in the public domain.
regards,
alexander.
[...]
You can't have it both ways. (C) stuff can't be in the public domain.
regards,
alexander.
T
The_Sage
Reply to article by: "David B. Held said:
When the standard is ambigious, the standard is of no use. If the authority
wants to retain control, the authority had better serve the people they
represent instead of representing themselves. If the people want void main(),
then the standard should evolve with the people who use it, or the standard will
become obsolete, just like the authority will lose credibility. Maybe your idea
of an authority is a mirror image of Adolf Hitler or Bill Gates, but thankfully
people in general are learning to stand up to people like that and think for
themselves. Having a standard allows all of us to work together as a team, it
isn't supposed to be a way to manipulate people into doing the will of the few.
Do you even have a clue what "but otherwise" means? In English? It means you
don't know what the heck you are talking about. Blindly assert all you want that
you are right and I am wrong, it won't change the fact that it can be
interpreted loosely in that section, and many of the major compiler
manufacturers have choosen the same interpretation as I have, not as you have.
Adapt or perish.
Not according to them or the standard, as it is currently worded. Argument by
mantra isn't going to prove anything, except you have no legitimate leg to stand
on.
And how did you determine that?
And how does the standards committee determine what the users need? Certainly
not by asking C++ users. I've never had an interview with the standards
committee. No one at my workplace has had an interview with the standards
committee. Who are they actually interviewing, if they are interviewing at all?
Yes, it is what many compiler manufacturers and their users want.
But to be a little more specific, what is the point in returning an int for
main()? The only time that is going to do anything is if you exit the program in
DOS. Then the program returns an DOS error code. Well guess what? DOS is dead.
It is obsolete. Returning anything at all is useless and pointless for a
standalone program anyway. That is what exception handling is for.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================
T
The_Sage
Reply to article by: "WW said:
You still didn't answer the question so I still take that as an admission you
have no clue.
Not that I thought otherwise.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================
T
The_Sage
Reply to article by: "David B. Held said:
You aren't answering the question, you are doding and avoiding it. Please show
us where any of those organizations mentioned claim that their compilers are
less than 100% conforming OR that "conforming" now has been redefined by Merriam
Webster to mean "almost conforming".
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================
W
WW
Post what Chapter 28 of the standard says about the main function or shut
up.
up.
W
WW
The_Sage said:
B
Bonzo
WW said:
YOU CONTINUE TO FEED A TROLL!
W
WW
Bonzo said:
AS I SEE I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE. CARE TO LOOK AT THE OTHER POSTERS OF THIS
THREAD? LIKE ANDREW KOENIG?
D
David B. Held
The_Sage said:
Actually, I gave you a response which you could judge for yourself.
Since you are too lazy or too incompetent to do so, I will do some
work for you:
http://bdn.borland.com/article/1,1410,10047,00.html
"According to the Plum Hall Validation Suite, Suite++(R)*
"xvs99a", Borland C++Builder 4, Update1 is 93%
compliant across chapters 2-16 of the ISO/IEC 14882:1998
specification."
Ask around the BCB community, and you will see that the compiler
hasn't undergone radical changes since version 4. I think the highest
quoted number I've seen is around 98%. Good, but that last 2% is
the most frustrating to deal with.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/productinfo/overview/whatsnew.aspx
"With 98-percent conformance, Visual C++ .NET 2003 is
more conformant to ISO C++ standards than any previous
version of Visual C++, and it contains new language support
for features including Koenig Lookup and Partial Template
Specialization."
Perhaps in your world "98 == 100"? Maybe that's how the "New
Math" works?
I couldn't find a place where IBM is honest and just says that their
compiler isn't really 100% conforming, but pretty much everyone
in the industry but you knows that it's not (for instance, it doesn't
have 'export'). Here's the next best thing (which is also appropriate
for every other major compiler on the market):
http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8193/cuj0104sutter/tab1.htm
It shows VisualAge to have about 97% conformance, which is
pretty good; but still, 97 != 100 (or should I write that in a
language you *do* understand, since you apparently don't
understand C++?). Of course, if you go with Dinkumware or
Perennial, you could say it's 99%, but then, that makes you
wonder why one test is more forgiving than another. It could
have to do with counting and weighting, but the fact is that none
of them are at 100%.
Of course, all this work is for the rest of the readers, not you.
It's clear that you are unable to comprehend English, and so you
will not be able to understand that we here have two of the major
C++ compiler vendors openly stating that their compilers are
not 100% conforming. Everyone else can, though; and thus it
serves to further reduce your credibility to a point infinitesimally
close to 0. If it goes down any further, we will have to alert
the mathematicians that we have a new number that is smaller
than every other number but larger than 0.
Please show me a legally binding public statement by each
company that every marketing claim they make can be taken
literally, and that they assume 100% liability for any factual
errors. I will then proceed to sue their pants off.
For instance, Borland's marketing info says that BCB 6 is
"ANSI/ISO C++ conforming", but it doesn't say "100%
conforming". Which means that either you are right, and I'm
going to sue them for fraud or false advertising, or I am right,
and "conforming" is measured in *DEGREES* (at least by
most marketing departments), and is not a binary property.
Dave
D
David B. Held
Alexander Terekhov said:
Oh. That's ok. The Sage doesn't know that. I was trying to sell
him something in the public domain anyway. I'm hoping he will
either bite, or fall for a discount. Most likely, The Sage will
argue that the law has not been interpreted properly by lawyers
and insist that not only can you copyright code, but you can *also*
place it in the public domain! And don't try to cite Supreme
Court precedents, because that's just a fallacious appeal to
authority!
Dave
B
Bonzo
WW said:
So you respond to trolls as long as others are doing so. OK, got it.
W
WW
Bonzo said:
Nope. I have made you note that I am not the one feeding the troll, but
many. Inlcuding you, as you post in this thread.