wtorek, 8 lutego 2022 o 12:44:09 UTC+1 fir napisał(a):
> > well, youre free to belive...
> hovever i may add you resemble dick hodgin...every man belives something but some special nuts
> war crusades like hodgin with jesus and you with your c++ belif.. in fact from psychical paoint of view this is sorta heavy degradation of mind in my opinion (heavy nuts so to say..so im okay with you belive your belifs but fighting pony crusade is mental degradation problem imo..im not involved ;<)

i was not long here and must add how sad so many nuts still walk here... when i get back i post something and then for some time i feel like a dose of normality (normalness? sorry bad english) and then local nuts come like zombies ... what a disaster

niedziela, 6 lutego 2022 o 21:52:37 UTC+1 fir napisał(a):
> niedziela, 6 lutego 2022 o 21:34:38 UTC+1 fir napisał(a):
> > thinking on it seems that those () make some problem, this come to my mind as kinda
> > alternative )im not sure if some of typenames should be vritten here in <> obligatory or non obligatory
> > struct <complex>
> > {
> > <float> x; //typical physical ones
> > <float> y; //accesible normally
> > def syntax <complex>.fi= <float> f
> > {
> > float r = sqrt(x*x+y*y);
> > x = cos(f)*r;
> > y = sin(f)*r;
> > }
> ye, it seems that as some expressions look better with <float> and some with float i think it should be possible using it <int> <float> as using as typenames but not obligatory, just to being able to write nicer looking code

as to this some side observation is i back then wrote thant when you "import" other modules
you need some keyword ile import, reaches, uses or something like that but with this <name>
convention it seems that you only need to put module and dont need a keyword

<math> m
<stdio> s

s.printf("zzzz");

this <name> convention on types seem to be a good idea also as it also shows some things

In article <sttk0c$sr6$1@dont-email.me>,
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>Am 07.02.2022 um 21:47 schrieb fir:
>
> its hard question to answer and im not in a mood today to answer such hard
>and side questions..
>
> If you say it is ugly you'd know why.
>
> but not strictly always..you may imagine cases when you see something
>is ugly but its hard to explain exactly why
>
>That's the problem - you don't know C++.

That's the problem. You don't know how Usenet works.

You seem unable to understand what newsgroup you are in when you post.

--
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.

- Napoleon Bonaparte -

On Monday, 7 February 2022 at 20:27:27 UTC, Bonita Montero wrote:
>
> With C++ you're multiple times productive than in C and the code
> is much more readable and maintainable.
>
You can make a much worse mess in C++ than in C much more
easily.
However good C++ tends to abstract out the housekeeping C code,
and is probably better than well-written C code.

Am 08.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Malcolm McLean:
> On Monday, 7 February 2022 at 20:27:27 UTC, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>
>> With C++ you're multiple times productive than in C and the code
>> is much more readable and maintainable.
>>
> You can make a much worse mess in C++ than in C much more
> easily.

In theory.

> However good C++ tends to abstract out the housekeeping C code,
> and is probably better than well-written C code.

On Tuesday, 8 February 2022 at 19:30:20 UTC+2, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 08.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Malcolm McLean:
> > On Monday, 7 February 2022 at 20:27:27 UTC, Bonita Montero wrote:
> >>
> >> With C++ you're multiple times productive than in C and the code
> >> is much more readable and maintainable.
> >>
> > You can make a much worse mess in C++ than in C much more
> > easily.
> In theory.

You have demonstrated it in practice too.

Am 09.02.2022 um 02:27 schrieb Öö Tiib:
> On Tuesday, 8 February 2022 at 19:30:20 UTC+2, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 08.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Malcolm McLean:
>>> On Monday, 7 February 2022 at 20:27:27 UTC, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>
>>>> With C++ you're multiple times productive than in C and the code
>>>> is much more readable and maintainable.
>>>>
>>> You can make a much worse mess in C++ than in C much more
>>> easily.
>> In theory.
>
> You have demonstrated it in practice too.

Mesage-Id, explanation why ?

Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:

> Better use C++ with the most convenient complex number support.

Unfortunately, C++ is too hard for fir.

--
Never get into a fight with an ugly person. He has nothing to lose.

fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote:

> hovever i may add you resemble dick hodgin...every man belives something
> but some special nuts war crusades like hodgin with jesus and you with
> your c++ belif..

You believe that C++ is inherently bad. You don't know C++, so it's just
your belief.

--
The fraudulence of the exercise is proportional to the margin of
victory.