From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,cd8ed9115942852f
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b92b95c9b5585075
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gid4f1905883f,gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!feeder.news-service.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Jed" <jehdiah@orbitway.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why use C++?
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 00:15:05 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <j22cs7$5ic$2@dont-email.me>
References: <j20cif$dr6$1@dont-email.me>
 <4209d782502610f6dbc08933d358b6d6@dizum.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 05:14:48 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="bUZkUS1QLqpHyXuWevVWHQ";
	logging-data="5708"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+2xyBc6fwb1fWFNu1IzdeQ"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zxFSnjGXInkVOBjiztmLX8qPyHY=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.c++:92595 comp.lang.ada:21522
Date: 2011-08-12T00:15:05-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message 
news:4209d782502610f6dbc08933d358b6d6@dizum.com...
> "Jed" <jehdiah@orbitway.net> wrote:
>
>> I know a little bit (enough to "be dangerous") of Intel assembly, and 
>> it
>> looks like C/C++ integer types are a direct reflection of what is at 
>> that
>> level. Even the fact that by default, integer literals are signed. So 
>> in
>> that respect, I think they are special. They are chosen for efficiency 
>> as
>> a direct reflection of hardware (I'm not saying all hardware is the 
>> same,
>> mind you).
>
> What?

What what?

>
> Of course there are unsigned integers even in the twisted world of 
> Intel.
> What's more C/C++ integer types are not a direct reflection of anything
> except the language spec otherwise the code would be completely not
> portable.

I didn't say it was. I said it probably arose from that. I'll bet integer 
literals are signed in most assembly languages (going out on a limb with 
this, because I really don't know). Hence, a no-brainer translation of 
HLL code to assembly (recognizing, of course, that compilers are free to 
generate machine code directly, rather than generating assembly).

>
>> You have to build those types though based upon the built-in ones, 
>> yes?
>> If so, aren't modular, wrapping and overflow-checked equally good for
>> something and all worthy of being in a language? Of course there is
>> signed, unsigned and the different bit widths as candidates also. And 
>> are
>> not those built-ins good to use "raw" in many cases? Are you 
>> suggesting
>> that a language have NO types? There is assembly language for that 
>> (and
>> the instruction set pretty much dictates what types you have to work 
>> with
>> at that level).
>
> It's not true assembly language has no types,

It's generally considered "typeless" from the POV of HLL programmers. It 
has relative meaning. No need to be pedantic about it.

> especially with certain
> systems and certain assemblers. The type in assembly language *does*
> usually reflect the native types of the underlying machine very 
> closely,
> obviously.

And I'll bet, more often than not, C/C++ built-in types reflect that 
also. It would be "silly" to specify a language to what is uncommon.