figo <rcc_dark@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > http://www.research.att.com/~bs/applications.html > > just as Bjarne once wrote in his TC++PL, its hard to teach an old dog new > tricks. Its even harder to give quality education about how to use something > to someone who doesnt want to learn. > > you hate high level, then continue programming operative systems, > please NEVER DO something else. C++ was designed to give programmers > high level tools and still being able to take care about > performance. > > portability wont be possible after a standard is published and some >couple of years given to the compiler developers. C++ had its >standard in 1998, and add two or three years for compiler development >= 2002. "Quite recently", way more recently that your last use of C++ >I can bet. Care to explain why there are still not two numerical C++ libraries with compatible matrix classes? What use is talking about portability and high level when a basic interoperability feature that has been available since the sixties (more than 4 decades ago) in Fortran has not yet managed to make it into C++? C++ by now more or less offers a (somewhat deficient) standardized way to work with complex numbers, but matrices are still not standardized in any manner, and libraries won't interoperate. So C++ should get its head wrapped around the _low_ level problems first. It is a bloody shame that it still has not caught up with Fortran IV (or even Fortran II) with regard to usefulness for numerical libraries. It is not a matter of "hating high level" to see that C++ is mostly focused about addressing the wrong kinds of problems in the wrong ways. The pain/gain ratio is just bad. -- David Kastrup - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
