From -4005396609136369670 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e8e0ab29e8861265 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:40:04 -0500 Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu From: kuyper@wizard.net Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: If C++ had interfaces, what would they be? Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1122689410.321008.36670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1122336456.595882.282330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <42e81ebe$0$38041$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk> <1122530279.186819.322090@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1122586008.778088.72820@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.234.255.45; posting-account=bPBxkgwAAABzUwlEAMy-xGlLqZFJ5Jz_ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:39:47 CST Lines: 90 NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.182.171.162 X-Trace: sv3-Knd3zAmfGdFO5IWHyK/s4QH2stTr3Qsva+naA+5QJfzftnKADGoEH934dz7ldjO/rTYe2hhzyDhB7a5!7iYuwKqeNcruz9ZO+tm0aREmmY1OLxV/VDuHa+9JrhBUXRLJTlnaj2JXV1c7PCjeG2/pUxI/yBe4!/IdIOtYqLeiW+SuMG2DQDKPWI9OQ9HWU6jG4HtDqmA== X-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:1570 Steven T. Hatton wrote: > kuyper@wizard.net wrote: > > > Steven T. Hatton wrote: > >> Bob Bell wrote: > > . > >> > What information do you think isn't there in a code base that would > >> > have to be synthesized out of thin air? > >> > > >> > Bob > >> > > >> > >> Take a look at this: > >> > >> http://www.java2s.com/ExampleCode/Swing-JFC/ClassBrowser.htm > >> > >> I challenge you to write comperable C++. I also trust the same can be > >> done > > > > You're being too vague, again. Try to be more specific. It's a big > > program, with a lot of capabilities. Which ones are you thinking of, > > specifically? > > Do you really thing that's a big program? I condirer it tiny. That last > two methods demonstrate the core principle being exhibited I'm sorry. At the time I wrote that message I hadn't looked at it closely yet. When you don't bother being sufficiently specific about what you're point is, it's hard for me to justify the time needed to figure out what it is you've failed to specify. When you suggested that it was doing something that would be difficult or impossible to do in C++, I just assumed it was big and complicated. Could you please identify the core principle that you're referring to, and what makes it difficulat or impossible to implement for C++ code? > > Writing [a?] comparable [program for?] C++ would be a big task, and of > > course it would never have exactly the same functionality; even if C++ > > were better in every possible way from java, and even if C++lassBrowser > > were better in every way than ClassBrowser, it wouldn't perform exactly > > the same tasks. So the question is, what are the differences that are > > relevant to your claim? > > What claim? I'm not aware of having made any claim. The claim that you made which led down to this point was: > Of course these features are used extensively. Nonetheless, because the > Java source code is more coherently organized by specification (or at least > recommendation and convention), and also because Java specifies a great > many infrastructure mechanism to facilitate locating resources, the Java > resource base can be searched much more effectively and deterministically > than can a C++ code base. Bob Bell disagreed with that assertion, saying that doing the same thing for C++ is just a matter of building the right tool; no changes to C++ are needed to make the searching just as effective and deterministic as it is for java. Verec pointed out, correctly, that a tool can't make use of information that isn't there. In context, by making that statement, he was implying that C++ fails to provide some of the relevant information that java does provide. This is really the claim that I was thinking about; but it wasn't your claim, so I apologize for making that misattribution. On the other hand, that claim seems to underlie the other things you have said, so I think it's a claim you would support; am I wrong? Bob Bell asked Verc to identify the missing information. You responded by pointing to a java tool which you challenged us to duplicate in C++. You failed to identify what feature the tool possesses that you think would make it difficult to write comparable C++ code, or why pointing at such a tool could be considered as constituting an answer to Bob Bell's question. > The word I used was comperable, not identical. Having spent some time > working on a comperable C++ application, I am very certain it is a > non-trivial undertaking. Then you should be in an excellent position to explain what features C++ possesses, or fails to possess, that make it a non-trivial undertaking, and why the presence (or absence) of those features has that effect. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]