Talk:C++/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about C++. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

paragraph regarding C++ Exception Handling was removed

After 16 years of the availability of C++ Exception Handling this page did not mention anything about it. I added a paragraph. My edit certainly reflected that this is still today a hotly contested & emotional subject for a majority of C++ programmers outside of boost or the C++ standard library. My edit was removed. I hope that somebody else will undo the removal or write some paragraph by himself about the same subject. This should certainly contain some mentioning about the phobia which still exists regarding this subject in the majority of people which make their money with C++. ExcessPhase (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That's great. Show your sources. And I continue to strongly recommend abandoning the hyperbolic term "phobia". Nobody on this planet has a clinically diagnosable phobia of exception handling. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Talks which exhibit such a phobia usually don't make it into the public, because these people are rightly ashamed of themselfs -- if not now, than in a couple of years. And that somebody questions my authority regarding this subject pisses me off. Gehabt Euch wohl!

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5426708/why-are-exceptions-so-rarely-used-in-c http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3490106/we-do-not-use-c-exceptions-whats-the-alternative-let-it-crash http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml#Exceptions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.73.228.23 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that "phobia" has a more restricted meaning in English than "phobie" has in German. You may wish to review the article Phobia.

As to questioning your authority, yes, that's a problem subject matter experts routinely have with Wikipedia that makes them unhappy engaging with it. The painful truth of the matter is, though, that Wikipedia's policy on verifiability means that your personal knowledge counts for nothing in and of itself; what matters is what you can source (though of course your personal knowledge helps you figure out what you can say that's verifiable). If you aren't willing to go to the effort of working from verifiable, reliable sources, though, I'm very much afraid you're likely to find your contributions continuing to be unwelcome.

The StackOverflow posts you link to are textbook examples of things that are not reliable sources and so not useful for verifiability purposes. The only way the Google Code policy document would demonstrate anything relevant is if you concluded by WP:SYNTHESIS that Google suffers from a phobia of exceptions, since all it says is that they don't use them. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments: Establish standards for version history tables in software articles

I'd like to introduce the Template:Version template to Wikipedia with the goal to establish one standard for version history tables (or lists). It simplifies creation of release histories, standardizes release stages and makes the content more accessible. Please comment on the template talk page (there already is some discussion). Thanks for your contribution. Jesus Presley (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Critique by Matt Weisfeld

How is that even critique? Unless object orientedness is some ultimate holy grail, theres nothing wrong with being _not_ object oriented. This should probably be moved elswhere in the article, any thoughts where? Kyle2^32-1 (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

C++ contains all necessary OO features, but isn't 'pure OO', which is what the quotes were talking about of C++, no, there is no benefit to being purely OO, being multi paradigm is beneficial as it allows programmers to express ideas in the way of their preference, for some that is OO, and in ways impossible in 'pure OO', which can be, and are often are, more efficient and readable than what can be expressed in 'pure OO'. MThinkCpp (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nearly all modern programming languages enforce some paradigms. (Python enforces indentation Java explicit casting...) This increases readability because you don't have think on every code you read in a other way, since every person has other preferences. A other aspect is that many people (the majority) think that a good programming language has to protect the programmer from making big mistakes (google for "do programmers need seat belts") You will find many people who think different but you can't say all these famous computer scientist telling only bullshit. --Fabiwanne (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing "computer scientist" and "famous programmer". They're not the same. Matt Weisfeld, by the way, appears to be neither. TEDickey (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ken Thompson quote in Criticism

This recent edit was just reverted out of the Criticism section as "WP:Soapbox comments". It looks legitimate to me, and a better inclusion than either Weisfeld's and Kay's quotes, which are both redundant to the second paragraph in the section and would be better placed as refs to it instead of being quoted in full. (Not to mention the Torvalds comment, which isn't criticism at all, but merely an opinion that it's "horrible". It's like having a cricitism section in Broccoli with George Bush's quote about not having to eat it anymore since he became president.) 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The quote was more along the lines of criticism of Stroustrup than relating to the language design itself. Keep in mind that this is a topic about the language TEDickey (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Renaming "Etymology" section to "Derivation of the name C++"

Though etymology is a perfect heading, it may be quite difficult for some people to understand. Changing it to a suitable easily understandable heading is suggested. SmackoVector (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Implementation language???

Seriously, do u guys think that C++ is implemented in C? :| (same thing about java even if that's not the right place to talk about that...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.134.18 (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong place for this question, C++ implementation language is implementation defined (i.e. could be C or C++, etc.)MThinkCpp (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

C was used to make the first compiler for C++ then was used to develop itself. Titamation (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source is still lacking TEDickey (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

How about http://www.stroustrup.com/hopl2.pdf, page 19, line 12 'so that the very first working C++ compiler was done in C++'. MThinkCpp (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Bjarne talks about the creation of c++ here Titamation (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't match your statement above (Bjarne states that he wrote an intermediate stage which was not exactly C or C++) TEDickey (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

C++ was originally implemented using Cfront to create C-code. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cfront — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.169.35 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Exception Handling

I see that there is still no paragraph regarding exception handling. Embarrassing. See the paragraph I wrote some time ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B&oldid=530499768 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.73.228.23 (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)