IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Theory and Practice of Programming Forum / I used to think Direct To SOM compilers would fix this
Post #80,574
by tuberculosis
Picture of tuberculosis
2/10/03 10:27:21 AM
Reply
New I used to think Direct To SOM compilers would fix this
The efficiencey freaks refused to use or adopt it.

MS compiles everything to COM - which does kind of the same thing.

Stroustrup's name mangling scheme was a really bad idea and its made C++ a bad citizen on the OS. Prior to C++ it was easy to mix compiled libs written in C, Fortran, Pascal, whatever, in the same program. C++'s "link mechanism" broke that.

Some people just shouldn't design languages.

Gosling and Stroustrup are two notable examples of smart guys with no talent for the task.


I think that it's extraordinarily important that we in computer science keep fun in computing. When it started out, it was an awful lot of fun. Of course, the paying customer got shafted every now and then, and after a while we began to take their complaints seriously. We began to feel as if we really were responsible for the successful, error-free perfect use of these machines. I don't think we are. I think we're responsible for stretching them, setting them off in new directions, and keeping fun in the house. I hope the field of computer science never loses its sense of fun. Above all, I hope we don't become missionaries. Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen. The world has too many of those already. What you know about computing other people will learn. Don't feel as if the key to successful computing is only in your hands. What's in your hands, I think and hope, is intelligence: the ability to see the machine as more than when you were first led up to it, that you can make it more.

--Alan Perlis
Post #80,580
by admin
Picture of admin
2/10/03 10:41:40 AM
Reply
New Some progress has been made.
There's a new ABI on 32-bit Linux that gcc 3.2 is targetting. Supposedly, other compilers on the platform are targetting it as well. The only one I've found actually claiming this is Intel's compiler, and they're actually targetting "gcc compatibility", not "standard ABI compatibility".

Regardless, by their own documentation, they aren't there quite yet.

What year is it again?
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
     Re: There is NOTHING wrong with pointers! - (admin) - (46) - Feb. 4, 2003, 01:55:10 PM EST
         Re: There is NOTHING wrong with pointers! - (dshellman) - (5) - Feb. 4, 2003, 02:57:39 PM EST
             Cross-platform can be nasty. - (admin) - Feb. 4, 2003, 03:38:34 PM EST
             Er,...really? - (jb4) - (3) - Feb. 4, 2003, 06:47:07 PM EST
                 Java pointer problems - (ChrisR) - (2) - Feb. 4, 2003, 09:32:06 PM EST
                     OT: threading - (admin) - Feb. 4, 2003, 09:36:29 PM EST
                     Just a nit - (dshellman) - Feb. 7, 2003, 01:13:26 PM EST
         Re: There is NOTHING wrong with pointers! - (deSitter) - (1) - Feb. 4, 2003, 03:20:17 PM EST
             Re: There is NOTHING wrong with pointers! - (admin) - Feb. 4, 2003, 03:40:40 PM EST
         I guess I don't see the problems with the compiler - (jb4) - (33) - Feb. 4, 2003, 06:40:12 PM EST
             Hmmmm - seems this thread got derailed due to ... - (dmarker) - (27) - Feb. 4, 2003, 08:02:51 PM EST
                 Java isn't a systems language at all, IMO. - (admin) - (26) - Feb. 4, 2003, 08:14:34 PM EST
                     I sure wouldn't use Java for Systems work - (dmarker) - (25) - Feb. 4, 2003, 09:18:47 PM EST
                         Which brings up the point: what IS systems work - (admin) - (24) - Feb. 4, 2003, 09:33:10 PM EST
                             The other aspect is... - (ChrisR) - (18) - Feb. 4, 2003, 09:40:25 PM EST
                                 Stroustrup has a great quote about that: - (admin) - Feb. 4, 2003, 09:47:11 PM EST
                                 Which is why C/C++ can be easily integrated with anything - (Arkadiy) - (16) - Feb. 5, 2003, 05:12:16 AM EST
                                     *C* is the lingua franca. - (admin) - (15) - Feb. 5, 2003, 08:42:14 AM EST
                                         ObjectiveC++ - (tuberculosis) - Feb. 5, 2003, 02:48:48 PM EST
                                         Welcom to my nightmare! - (jb4) - (13) - Feb. 10, 2003, 10:02:27 AM EST
                                             ABI: Application Binary Interface - (admin) - (12) - Feb. 10, 2003, 10:18:32 AM EST
                                                 I used to think Direct To SOM compilers would fix this - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Feb. 10, 2003, 10:27:21 AM EST
                                                     Some progress has been made. - (admin) - Feb. 10, 2003, 10:41:40 AM EST
                                                 Snide remark and a question - (jb4) - (5) - Feb. 10, 2003, 03:30:19 PM EST
                                                     Snide response. - (admin) - Feb. 10, 2003, 04:14:16 PM EST
                                                     Libraries - remember those? - (tuberculosis) - (2) - Feb. 10, 2003, 04:26:03 PM EST
                                                         Exactly. - (admin) - Feb. 10, 2003, 04:28:16 PM EST
                                                         Reality check: why libraries matter: - (admin) - Feb. 10, 2003, 06:19:37 PM EST
                                                     Libraries - remember those? - (tuberculosis) - Feb. 10, 2003, 05:53:57 PM EST
                                                 a day late and a dollar short...but extern "C" - (Simon_Jester) - (3) - Feb. 13, 2003, 12:28:21 AM EST
                                                     For a 3rd party module? No. - (admin) - (2) - Feb. 13, 2003, 09:02:41 AM EST
                                                         If you export C++ mangled functions, you're screwed. - (Arkadiy) - (1) - Feb. 13, 2003, 11:25:16 AM EST
                                                             Or, rather: Export C++ mangled functions in a lib you sell.. - (CRConrad) - Feb. 13, 2003, 05:40:18 PM EST
                             Simple - (deSitter) - Feb. 4, 2003, 11:33:33 PM EST
                             No - (Arkadiy) - (2) - Feb. 5, 2003, 05:09:24 AM EST
                                 But, in the hands of a good programmer, it's a sharp tool. - (admin) - (1) - Feb. 5, 2003, 08:40:45 AM EST
                                     Like Cathie Ryan said... - (Arkadiy) - Feb. 5, 2003, 10:05:14 AM EST
                             Friend of a Friend - (tuberculosis) - Feb. 5, 2003, 02:21:58 PM EST
             Re: I guess I don't see the problems with the compiler - (admin) - (2) - Feb. 4, 2003, 08:13:12 PM EST
                 OK, here's where we agree to disagree, and agree to agree... - (jb4) - (1) - Feb. 10, 2003, 03:10:35 PM EST
                     Re: OK, here's where we agree to disagree, and agree to agre - (admin) - Feb. 10, 2003, 04:25:58 PM EST
             Geronimo! - (tuberculosis) - Feb. 5, 2003, 01:55:33 PM EST
             Attacking Java doesn't make C++ better - (tuberculosis) - Feb. 5, 2003, 02:38:37 PM EST
         does the content of this thread indicate Bryce is right? :-) -NT - (boxley) - (3) - Feb. 5, 2003, 03:09:20 PM EST
             Inasmuch as: - (admin) - Feb. 5, 2003, 03:14:05 PM EST
             C++ implements OO programming - (tuberculosis) - Feb. 5, 2003, 03:23:37 PM EST
             Not at all. - (static) - Feb. 7, 2003, 06:44:29 AM EST

This is immediately dreadful.
169 ms