Re: Why use C++?

["Jed" <jehdiah@orbitway.net>]

Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> "Jed" <jehdiah@orbitway.net> wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
> Absolutely not.

Liar.

> Assembly language is about talking to the machine
> directly. If you can't manipulate native types then your assembler
> isn't an assembler.
>

Pedantic "discussion" is annoying to me, so curb it.

>> 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).
>
> Most (vast majority) of the compilers on IBM platforms generate object
> code.

Their loss! ;)

> It sounds like you think a goal of HLL design is to be easy to
> implement.

The goal? What "goal" are you on about?

> That's wrong.

What is "right" and what is "wrong". (This is great, because you know 
this and everyone else wants to know, right? Do tell, what is WRONG, and 
right.)

>The goal of HLL design

I didn't know it was a <something>.

>  is to make it easy to
> solve problems in the problem domain.

The pageant queen saying "world peace". You can't hang dude. She is 
pretty and has value, while you have none.

>
>> It's generally considered "typeless" from the POV of HLL
>> programmers. It has relative meaning. No need to be pedantic about
>> it.
>
> It wasn't pedantic,

I said it was, so it is. Don't F with me.

> it was a simple comment from an assembly coder.

Bah.

> Assembly is typed or it wouldn't be useful.

Strawman. Context matters.

> However there's no type
> enforcement at the assembler level (usually, although at the hardware
> level there is.)

masturbation.

> That is no the same as not being typed, although to
> an HLL programmer it may not be obvious that those two things are not
> one and the same.
>
>>> 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.
>
> You have the tail wagging the dog.

Says the adolescent with dick in hand.

> The C/C++ built-in types don't
> reflect anything but the language design

Your you inquisitiveness noted. But what about all those people you 
killed?

>
>> It would be "silly" to specify a language to what is uncommon.
>
> That's exactly the point of HLL. It must provide useful abstractions
> for the problem domain. The underlying implementation should not
> matter at all.

You have not platform. You are a killer. Men kill. Women don't.