Re: Open source C++ Bot

[Warrior]

Linus is correct, he chooses C in the absence of any other practical language.
By practical language I mean one which has stood the test of time as a systems level language.

That and the fact that Linux is written in C.

[squiggly]

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643/focus=57918

Not that I agree entirely with Linus or am supporting any of brew's argument, but I read this a while back and thought I'd throw this in here. Enjoy  .

You understand that that post was made in reference to a topic about Git... which, coincidentally, is a component of the linux kernel

[Leaky]

LoLWuT?

O.o do you have a magic keyboard? where the pressure applied to your keys is applied to your code?

that's the only way i can think of for you to misunderstand that...

It's a joke, but yes my keyboard is magic.

because i make a statement that's contrary to what you believe?

No, because you made a statement agreeing with brew. Therefore, it's logic you're one of his friends. It's impossible that two people unrelated to each other could share an equal mental retardation.

Not to mention your statement (like most of brews statements) is incorrect.

hmm im going to have to reply with another LoLWuT?


so your claiming

Not to mention your statement (like most of brews statements) is incorrect.

that c++ is forced OOP? that if i choose not to use classes OH NO wtf was i thinking? if i choose not to use any of the OOP portions of c++ then im just SOL arn't i? darn i should have thought about that before i made this completly non OOP c++ program that prints Hello World to the console window!


also

mental retardation is in fact sharable, but we don't share it it's just a very very commonly accepted fact that c++ is not forced OOP

and  squiggly what the hell does my tech support check list have to do with me being retarded?.... you've obviously never done tech support for DSL companies... that's all you do unplug modem plug it back in bam connected.... and all of my posts were on topic... and wern't flame wars
your posts arn't that much better than mine.. just more of them

[Warrior]

that c++ is forced OOP? that if i choose not to use classes OH NO wtf was i thinking? if i choose not to use any of the OOP portions of c++ then im just SOL arn't i? darn i should have thought about that before i made this completly non OOP c++ program that prints Hello World to the console window!

Alright, I know this may be a little hard for you but there is no C++ without OOP. Considering that C++ is essentially C with support for formal object orientation.

It's like buying a car, taking the wheels off, taking out the seats, and dismantling the engine. Sure, it's still a car but what's the point?

You're not smart. I also hope you realize that the streams you're using to print to the said console (unless you're using printf(), a library member written in presumably C) are wrapped around classes and operator overloads.

You should only try to be a smart ass when you're actually smart.

mental retardation is in fact sharable, but we don't share it it's just a very very commonly accepted fact that c++ is not forced OOP

I'm having trouble believing there are two people as dumb as brew in this world. I mean one time is a fluke, the second time you need to ask yourself if the theory of evolution has room for regression.

[brew]

Stop talking plz, I mean, it's not as though I support Warrior, but come on, you're bloody annoying

In fact, you should immediately close your account, that would be best

Especially when you make stupid posts like that

Can't expect anyone to take you seriously after seeing those

click me
I honestly don't get what's stupid with his posts. You're annoying. Stop posting in this topic.

@Warrior:

Alright, I know this may be a little hard for you but there is no C++ without OOP. Considering that C++ is essentially C with support for formal object orientation.

Okay, you're right. But, say if someone just starts a new project, in VC2005 and all. Does that mean, that the language it's being written in does not become C++ until at least one instance of OO is included? I understand where you're coming from, but that sounds pretty fuckin retarded y'know

[Leaky]

that c++ is forced OOP? that if i choose not to use classes OH NO wtf was i thinking? if i choose not to use any of the OOP portions of c++ then im just SOL arn't i? darn i should have thought about that before i made this completly non OOP c++ program that prints Hello World to the console window!

Alright, I know this may be a little hard for you but there is no C++ without OOP. Considering that C++ is essentially C with support for formal object orientation.

It's like buying a car, taking the wheels off, taking out the seats, and dismantling the engine. Sure, it's still a car but what's the point?

You're not smart. I also hope you realize that the streams you're using to print to the said console (unless you're using printf(), a library member written in presumably C) are wrapped around classes and operator overloads.

You should only try to be a smart ass when you're actually smart.

mental retardation is in fact sharable, but we don't share it it's just a very very commonly accepted fact that c++ is not forced OOP

I'm having trouble believing there are two people as dumb as brew in this world. I mean one time is a fluke, the second time you need to ask yourself if the theory of evolution has room for regression.

-.- not everything in c++ is object oriented and not everything non OO in c++ is in c....

and.. and... your fat! i like evolution so shush

[Hell-Lord]

Warrior said it spot on, one of C++'s main concepts is OOP without it it would be C with a few more features. It comes down i believe to its purpose. I don't understand how people can apply C to application development why waste hours instead of saving time and doing it in a higher level language.

[Warrior]

Okay, you're right. But, say if someone just starts a new project, in VC2005 and all. Does that mean, that the language it's being written in does not become C++ until at least one instance of OO is included? I understand where you're coming from, but that sounds pretty fuckin retarded y'know

You missed the car analogy, try again.
Same for you Leaky.

You see where my theory that you both share the same brain is proven correct?

[Yegg]

Another thing I felt I'd throw in.

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#C-is-better

Stroustrup would agree with Warrior and disagree with brew had he been involved with this thread. And he's definitely a very intelligent individual.

[Sorc.Polgara]

Another thing I felt I'd throw in.

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#C-is-better

Stroustrup would agree with Warrior and disagree with brew had he been involved with this thread. And he's definitely a very intelligent individual.

Heh.  I'm having lunch with Stroustrup and attending his presentation Nov. 9th.  Which reminds me, I need to buy one of his books to get autographed.  I'm giddy... like I'm meeting a superstar.

[Win32]

There is no "best" programming paradigm, just because OO-programming is mainstream does not mean it's the only way to view a problem. Personally, I'm sick of seeing all these new 'high-level' languages and frameworks, it's just compensation for programmer intelligence (something that is already at a low).
Programming was never meant to be a simple feat, and I fail to see why it should become one for the sake of allowing any random computer geek into the field; the argument of "faster development time" just proves this point, if you're actually a skilled programmer (and more-so an intelligent person) the methodology you use is totally irrelevent, and to argue otherwise would mean you're simply not experienced enough in it.

As any professional developer would know, the task of writing code is a relatively small step in the overall development cycle. Hell, you could write your whole solution in assembly, presuming you're a fast typer and capable of switching between multiple levels of abstract thought.

I'm not actually against OO design, I use it, just not formally within the language (C++). Then again, I use alot of assembly aswell

[MyndFyre]

Programming was never meant to be a simple feat, and I fail to see why it should become one for the sake of allowing any random computer geek into the field

Why should it not be?

[Barabajagal]

BASIC was designed exactly for the purpose of making programming easier. Look how well it did. It doesn't matter what specific people think, it matters what the masses cause to actually do well. Capitalistic societies suck that way.

To quote an old (well, not that old) phrase for programming: Keep it simple, stupid.

[l2k-Shadow]

until i actually seriously started studying C++, i thought that BASIC languages were not that limited.

oh how wrong i was.

the way i look at it is, if you want to write a simple app for yourself or a few people to use, go with VB or other BASIC language... if you want a giant app which needs speed and stability, such as a server or a game engine, don't use BASIC, it's not meant for that.

[Win32]

Why should it not be?

There needs to be just cause. People claim C is complex and 'hard' simply because they're idiots who don't know any better. The simple abstractions for languages are fine, just not the extent something like VB takes it to. C++ provided great language support for OO design, C# just killed it.