Re: Cpp Considered Harmful
From: Steven T. Hatton (susudata_at_setidava.kushan.aa)
Date: 09/02/04
- Next message: Method Man: "Re: Char * to int"
- Previous message: Fao, Sean: "Re: Class Confusion"
- In reply to: Sam Holden: "Re: Cpp Considered Harmful"
- Next in thread: Sam Holden: "Re: Cpp Considered Harmful"
- Reply: Sam Holden: "Re: Cpp Considered Harmful"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:30:12 -0400
Sam Holden wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 03:52:53 -0400,
> Steven T. Hatton <susudata@setidava.kushan.aa> wrote:
>> Phlip wrote:
>>
>>> Steven T. Hatton wrote:
>>>
>>>> And you get threadding, unicode, effortless portability, incredibly
>>>> smooth refactoring, highlevel abstraction with the tools to support it,
>>>> great,
>>>
>>> Threading is good??
>>
>> Hu? Even Microsoft eventually figured that out. Yes. Thread support is
>> crucial for creating any sophisticated application that can be expected
>> to do more than one thing at a time.
>
> Strangely enough I've been using non-threaded applications that
> do more than one thing at a time and are reasonably sophisticated.
>
> Where sophisticated means things like: makes multiple concurrent TCP
> connections, encodes and decodes audio sending and receiving it over
> UDP, displays GUI and so on - without a thread in sight (well one
> thread for the pedants).
OK. Let me be clear as to what I really meant be threading. I really
intended concurrent programming with resource locking and synchronization.
Technically, threading means tracing the same executable image with
multiple instruction pointers. It's main advantages are the multiple use
of the same executable image by different 'processes', and the reduced need
for context switching between processes.
> I even write them occassionaly.
>
> Threading throws away decades of work in creating systems with useful
> protected memory spaces for processes. And lets the average programmer
> meet all the problems and reinvent (poorly) all the solutions all over
> again. Rather than using the solution implemented by the (hopefully
> much more experienced and competent in the domain) OS authors.
What you seem to be suggesting is that threads are used in situations where
multiple processes would be better. Am I to also understand that all
concurrency is bad?
> Of course there's that vanishingly small percentage of problems that
> are best solved with threads, but chances are you, me, and the
> next guy aren't working on one of them.
Please clarify what you mean by 'thread'. I suspect we aren't talking about
the same thing.
-- "[M]y dislike for the preprocessor is well known. Cpp is essential in C programming, and still important in conventional C++ implementations, but it is a hack, and so are most of the techniques that rely on it. ...I think the time has come to be serious about macro-free C++ programming." - B. S.
- Next message: Method Man: "Re: Char * to int"
- Previous message: Fao, Sean: "Re: Class Confusion"
- In reply to: Sam Holden: "Re: Cpp Considered Harmful"
- Next in thread: Sam Holden: "Re: Cpp Considered Harmful"
- Reply: Sam Holden: "Re: Cpp Considered Harmful"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|