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: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Jed" Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why use C++? Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 01:52:07 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <08ae71ca6cbc35285617f3284ec0ec48@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:51:46 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="KjJVZ+2pm40y3WME79WlsQ"; logging-data="20586"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/TLcpxWkHsCsiBk7AazH9V" 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:QWleOjwudrtDL4Qo/RVZmABVgOQ= X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.c++:82964 comp.lang.ada:20624 Date: 2011-08-14T01:52:07-05:00 List-Id: Fritz Wuehler wrote: > "Jed" 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 . > 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.