WHAT? i'm no programmer...
#1
Posted 17 September 2003 - 08:37 PM
My Space
The Acimonious
The Acrimonious Merchandise
<vladd> you're dumb
<vladd> all of you
<joepsycho> that's too bad
<joepsycho> you fit right in too vladd
<vladd> huw
<joepsycho> just by stating that we are stupid stated the obvious, so you're as stupid as we are
<joepsycho> good job stupid
<joepsycho> oh you said
<joepsycho> dumb
<joepsycho> well i'm stupid so yeah
<joepsycho> take that
<vladd> k
<joepsycho> that's right
<joepsycho> you better and yeah
<joespycho> dummy
<LogiCow> amazing logic from joepsycho
#2
Posted 17 September 2003 - 09:25 PM
I know someones going to elaborate on this better than I probably could so, I'll just leave it at that. Ask Exo/lancer/anyone else who programs with C/C++.
C is like a plain donut, but C++ it like "Ooooh, sprinkles!"
#3
Posted 17 September 2003 - 09:31 PM
#4
Posted 17 September 2003 - 10:29 PM
So, some people feel like sprinkles others Don't
#5
Posted 17 September 2003 - 10:29 PM
Erm, a donut with sprinkles on it? No, the two languages are two different ways of doing things. You could emulate object orientation using regular C, and everything you can do in C++ can be done in C. I just like C better.
This post has been edited by Skylark: 17 September 2003 - 10:36 PM
#6
Posted 17 September 2003 - 10:50 PM
Good: it has lots of extra features?
Bad: it has too much clutter?
My Space
The Acimonious
The Acrimonious Merchandise
<vladd> you're dumb
<vladd> all of you
<joepsycho> that's too bad
<joepsycho> you fit right in too vladd
<vladd> huw
<joepsycho> just by stating that we are stupid stated the obvious, so you're as stupid as we are
<joepsycho> good job stupid
<joepsycho> oh you said
<joepsycho> dumb
<joepsycho> well i'm stupid so yeah
<joepsycho> take that
<vladd> k
<joepsycho> that's right
<joepsycho> you better and yeah
<joespycho> dummy
<LogiCow> amazing logic from joepsycho
#7
Posted 17 September 2003 - 11:28 PM
#9
Posted 18 September 2003 - 01:34 AM
C++ is based off of C. The only difference is that in C you have functions and in C++ you have Objects. Objects double also as functions. so an Object is just a function with extra functionality...
Why the hell would they call it C++ if it wasn't based off of C?
"C" (the programming language) + "++" (New and improved!) = "C++" (The New and improved Programming language)
#10
Posted 18 September 2003 - 03:58 AM
<img src="http://ross.box43.net/sig.php/sig.png" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" />
#11
Posted 18 September 2003 - 04:19 AM
Koji, on Sep 17 2003, 08:34 PM, said:
C++ is based off of C. The only difference is that in C you have functions and in C++ you have Objects. Objects double also as functions. so an Object is just a function with extra functionality...
Why the hell would they call it C++ if it wasn't based off of C?
"C" (the programming language) + "++" (New and improved!) = "C++" (The New and improved Programming language)
Koji, what did I tell you about talking about things you clearly have little to no knowledge about? You are so far off base about C++ that it's hard to even feel sorry for your blinding ignorance. Contrary to what some people think, C++ cannot be described as C with some new features. Furthermore objects have nothing to do with functions. I feel stupider for even having read that. Now I'm going to explain precisely what C and C++ are.
C is a procedural programming language written in the 1970's. At the time assembly language programming was the norm for serious programming, while high level languages were too bulky and slow. C was made pretty specifically for PDP machines as a pretty middle of the road solution. The main reason C was written was to facilitate in the writing of Unix, which of course was a quite large and ambitious operating system and needed a language that was both fast and powerful while being more managable than assembly. Because of this C and Unix are closely related historically, and even to this day C is often preferred in *nixes. C was THE mainstream language for a very long time, much to the chagrin to those who think it's an inferior language (many find it too low level. In fact, some have even called it "portable assembler." I personally think it's much more than that). C received it's first ANSI standardizations in 1989, and since then most compilers worth anything have complied to this. New standards were ratified in 1999, which enhance the language in many ways. Unfortunately few vendors have adopted these new features in full (or even at all in some cases).
C++ is largely a reaction to the growing popularity of OOP theory in the early 1980's. Although C++'s creator claims that C++ is useful for any programming paradigm, it is clearly aimed at OOP (object oriented programming, which has its roots in procedural programming). It is true that C++ is a mostly complete superset of C, meaning that everything in C is present in C++. Furthermore, C++'s unique features are added in a way that makes them coherent with C's syntax (unlike Objective C, which basically meshes C and Smalltalk together.. and these are two very different languages). However, C++ isn't merely an extension to C, nor is it something that C programmers have a particularly easy time moving to while utilizing well (some people vastly underutilize C++ though. Like Greg Janson with MZX. They'd be better off using pure C). Programming correctly in C++ is actually a lot different than programming in C, even though it does utilize fundamental structures of C. C++ received an ISO standardization in 1998, I believe. Because it was received so late, and because many things aren't standardized at all (name mangling, several rules for templates), C++ remains heavily unstandardized. Thus it's much harder to write portable C++ code.
And in an attempt to undo some of the damage Koji's done, I'll try to describe what an object is vs. what a function is. A function in the C sense is actually a combination of a function in the mathematical sense and a procedure. A mathematical function takes a certain number of inputs, and returns a precise output (so each set of inputs has only one output). For instance, the square root function would return the square root of its input. Procredures are more important in computer science terms; they "do" something. For instance you might have a function that prints to the screen; this is regarded as a pure procedure because only its "side effect" (what it does within the duration of its run) is important, not what it returns.
Basically, an object is a collection of functions (in this case, called methods) and data that describe an object in the sense we would think of one, as a concrete and self contained functional unit. An object is expected to have sole access to its own data, and provide methods so that the outside world can interact with it and tell it what to do. Think of a black box kind of machine. Objects also have important organizational and reuse benefits. You may "inheret" classes (a class is what defines an object) from a base class, adding functionality to it, or changing existing functionality, while still allowing the object to be an instantiation of its parent class (and thus substitutable). This makes a lot of types of code easier to write and expand in the long run, but be warned. OOP isn't good for everything, despite what many say. There is sharp criticism for it used in many areas.. for instance embedded software and emulators.
- Exo
"The fact that I say I've one of the best, is called honesty." -Akwende
"Megazeux is not ment to be just ASCII, it is ANSI!" - T-bone6
"I hate it when you get all exo on me." - emalkay
Exophase can what Rubi-cant.
exoware is ware ur ware is exoware
ps. not loking 4 new membrs kthx
#12
Posted 18 September 2003 - 05:18 AM
All the functions in the object can access the object's member variables... but it can also be used purely to store things, like a structure in C.
The functions in an object are usually always related to each other... if a function is standalone, it is usually either declared as a global function or as a member of an object that is used to hold these kinds of functions..
Er.. sorry I don't really know much about C++, as I rarely code in it.
~ Lancer-X
<Malwyn> Yes, yes. Don't worry I'd rather masturbate with broken glass than ask you for help again. :(
#13
Posted 18 September 2003 - 11:54 AM
I'm sorry, Exophase, I didn't know the whole history of C/C++ but I must say you are VERY quick to respond rashly. I only said "more features" when I was trying to compare C/C++ with mzx 2.51/mzx 2.69c (I only did so to simplify the idea to joe). I didn't mean it to actually imply that C++ is only different in that has some more functions that it can preform.
I'm really getting sick of you and everyone else who seems to hate for the sake of hating, especially mordac.
#14
Posted 18 September 2003 - 02:46 PM
The point being that Objects really aren't anything like functions at all. It's more reasonable to compare an Object to an int, than a function; your blunder demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the way C/C++ programming works. What's far more disturbing about this is that you purportedly did some work on the MZX codebase. So I think it really CAN be said that I feel stupider for having read that in the first place.
"The dreams in which I'm dyin' are the best I've ever had.
..Ignorance is to be unaware of the truth.
....Incompetence is to be unable to grasp the truth.
......And escape is to run away from the truth.
It is useless to run, since the truth is right next to you.
-Wervyn
#15
Posted 18 September 2003 - 03:12 PM
Why-Fi: but I'M MATURE ENOUGH TO BE A MODERATOR!!!!!!!!!!
#16
Posted 18 September 2003 - 03:15 PM
When you make a C funtion in C++ it is refered to as an object.
And being an object, is has different properties/functionalities ("more functionality").
Thats all I meant.
I also said "I know someones going to elaborate on this better than I probably could so, I'll just leave it at that. Ask Exo/lancer/anyone else who programs with C/C++." in my first post.
I admitted that I didn't know much about C/C++. I know enough to get around in C okay, but not profesionally...
Only after skylark basically said that C and C++ are two totally different programming systems that look similar. Did I post again.
I mean come on. C++ is based off of C. It's a freak'n superscript. I'm suprized people are taking time to FLAME the shit out of me for something so trivial.
Really though, I hate this crap I get dished out whenever I say (litterally)anything. Hate for the sake of hate.
#17
Posted 18 September 2003 - 03:46 PM
Quote
Not even remotely. A QBasic SUB is like a C/C++ function. I'm not sure if there's really a good analog in QBasic for a C++ Object. But we can see the damage Koji is doing is already taking effect.
Quote
No. It's not. When you make a function in C++ it is refered to as a function. When an Object encapsulates a particular function, I believe you refer to that function as a procedure, although I may be getting my terminology crossed. An Object is NOT a function. An Object is a specific instance of a class, which is an encapsulation of a set of related data and procedures to manipulate that data. Again, an Object is NOT the same thing as a function. It has far more in common with a C struct.
"*doesnt know to much about C++*"
..Ignorance is to be unaware of the truth.
....Incompetence is to be unable to grasp the truth.
......And escape is to run away from the truth.
It is useless to run, since the truth is right next to you.
-Wervyn
#18
Posted 18 September 2003 - 05:49 PM
My Elder Brother who is taking a C++ programming class was told by his teacher that C functions if placed in a C++ compiler are refered to as objects. Sorry for the confusion.
#19
Posted 18 September 2003 - 06:45 PM
i think i'm beginning to understand
My Space
The Acimonious
The Acrimonious Merchandise
<vladd> you're dumb
<vladd> all of you
<joepsycho> that's too bad
<joepsycho> you fit right in too vladd
<vladd> huw
<joepsycho> just by stating that we are stupid stated the obvious, so you're as stupid as we are
<joepsycho> good job stupid
<joepsycho> oh you said
<joepsycho> dumb
<joepsycho> well i'm stupid so yeah
<joepsycho> take that
<vladd> k
<joepsycho> that's right
<joepsycho> you better and yeah
<joespycho> dummy
<LogiCow> amazing logic from joepsycho
#20
Posted 18 September 2003 - 07:54 PM
<pyro1588> "welcome to australia, can i help you find what you're looking for?"
<Tox> pyro1588, I'm giving you the most reproachful of glares right now.
--------
Go show those nutty Koreans what us crazy Europeans are made of pirate.gif pirate.gif pirate.gif - Saike
<exophase> The old Commodore strategy of, "Go friggin' bankrupt!"
<wervyn> Go away! I'm writing the same engine I always do!
#21
Posted 18 September 2003 - 08:03 PM
Pyro1588, on Sep 18 2003, 03:54 PM, said:
#22
Posted 18 September 2003 - 10:37 PM
Koji, on Sep 18 2003, 05:49 PM, said:
My Elder Brother who is taking a C++ programming class was told by his teacher that C functions if placed in a C++ compiler are refered to as objects. Sorry for the confusion.
Heh, no. No no no no no. No.
Functions in C are functions in C++.
Objects are not functions, nor variables.
They simple house functions and variables, and link them together.
Kapische?
~ Lancer-X
<Malwyn> Yes, yes. Don't worry I'd rather masturbate with broken glass than ask you for help again. :(
#23
Posted 18 September 2003 - 10:40 PM
Koji, on Sep 19 2003, 12:45 AM, said:
I'm pretty sure that what I said was that they are based off different ideas... Oh wait, that is what I said!
Don't flame me just because you put your foot in your mouth and are now choking on it.
EDIT: I spelt 'foot' as 'fut'.
This post has been edited by Skylark: 18 September 2003 - 10:41 PM
#24
Posted 19 September 2003 - 12:52 AM
Koji, on Sep 18 2003, 06:54 AM, said:
Yeah, well until you realize we're annoyed at you because of how you behave and not because we just arbitrarily feel like being annoying, you're never going to change.
And at this rate, things will only get worse. If you don't stop acting the way you do and then playing the victim role when someone confronts you about it, you're not going to be accepted here much longer.
BTW, when someone asks for information, don't tell them what you haphazardly heard (and I think you're lying, because no C++ teacher in the world would compare functions and objects). If you don't know FIRSTHAND a single thing about what's being said, don't talk about it. Period. Stop excusing and rationalizing all of your posts. There's no excuse for this kind of behavior. It's exactly like Artith always behaved. I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you AREN'T Artith, but you've sure inherited his behavior. Maybe if you could actually realize this instead of moaning and saying that everyone hates you for no reason, people would start treating you differently.
- Exo
"The fact that I say I've one of the best, is called honesty." -Akwende
"Megazeux is not ment to be just ASCII, it is ANSI!" - T-bone6
"I hate it when you get all exo on me." - emalkay
Exophase can what Rubi-cant.
exoware is ware ur ware is exoware
ps. not loking 4 new membrs kthx
#25
Posted 19 September 2003 - 01:12 AM
Wervyn, on Sep 18 2003, 10:46 AM, said:
I was going to reply to this with "The dreams in which I'm dying are the best I've ever had," BUT THEN I SAW YOU DID IT AT THE END OF THE POST AND YOU CRUSHED MY DREAMS. WAY TO RUIN MY JOKE, WERV. Cripes. And I was all excited about it, too. :(
(T4F 4EVAR)
Also, Koji: cry me a river. I don't go around being annoyed at people just because I feel like it. That would be retarded. You annoy me because you're annoying. And it's not just me. I don't know why you can't just accept that and move on. It's not a big deal. And stuff.
#26
Posted 19 September 2003 - 02:38 AM
~ Lancer-X
<Malwyn> Yes, yes. Don't worry I'd rather masturbate with broken glass than ask you for help again. :(
#27
Posted 19 September 2003 - 05:00 AM
Lancer : Gottchya. I wish others would treat a misconception more like you do, cause it'd save a lot of people a lot of grief.
Exophase : No one knows anything first hand except the person who came up with the knowledge in the first place. Knowledge is knowledge you can't really experience it. It must be taught. And I explained that I was only saying what I've heard, I never said I knew for a fact.
Modac/Exophase : Forget it already. So you think I'm annoying, get over yourselves. I'm finding you annoying too, we're even okay? ^^
I hate to be a part of a flame war so I'll no longer be a part of this one, meaning, rant and rave all you want, because I'm not listening anymore.
#28
Posted 19 September 2003 - 06:12 AM
Artith1 said:
That's all I have to say about that. Benefit of the doubt nothing.
BTW, enjoy your new warning level, Artith.
- Exo
"The fact that I say I've one of the best, is called honesty." -Akwende
"Megazeux is not ment to be just ASCII, it is ANSI!" - T-bone6
"I hate it when you get all exo on me." - emalkay
Exophase can what Rubi-cant.
exoware is ware ur ware is exoware
ps. not loking 4 new membrs kthx
#29
Posted 19 September 2003 - 06:02 PM
#30
Posted 19 September 2003 - 06:10 PM
Heh. I love hearing people talk about programming languages. I can sit and nod my head and pretend to know what they're talking about!