> Nobody is trying to "turn C++ into Java." The committee is> interested in standardizing existing practice. We should> standardize threads for the simple reason that lots of> people are writing multi-threaded C++ programs today. To> not put threads in the standard would be to ingore the> needs of real C++ programmers.> > --> Eric NieblerAnd...

> Achilleas, > > Please Google "Boehm "Threads Cannot Be Implemented As A> Library"". In that paper, Hans describes in detail why we> can't just standardize thread and lock classes and call it> good. For those classes to actually work across platforms,> they need to be able to rely on things that the language> currently doesn't guarantee...

Another approach is needed that does not involve html, but rather code: the designer should design the web pages in an IDE, the IDE produces the view code (which when it runs, it produces html), and the programmer ties the view code with the model.

I really do not understand their complicated way of thinking. Why don't they simply specify a simple library with the following classes:-thread-critical_section-mutex-semaphore-wait_condition-lock (for RAII)That's all that is needed.The rest of considerations (for example, order of optimizations etc), while not irrelevant, are very excuisite...

> hi,> > A very important concept:> > 'Delegate or method reference or method pointer' is not> equal to 'closure'.> > This is a method reference/delegate: > > > bar.action += foo.action;> > > Ans this is a closure:> > > bar.action = (int x){return x + 2};> > > although they look similar, but they are completely> different things.C# 2.0 blurs...

> >other languages (Java, Haskell, Eiffel etc) are on par> with C++.> > Haskell??? Even on the Haskell advocacy page> http://www.haskell.org/complex/why_does_haskell_matter.html> they say: "As a general rule C++ should be faster than> Haskell, there's no point claiming anything else."> > Maybe you mean OCaml?But they also say that For the vast...

I do not like the proposed solution very much, for these reasons:1) not having to use 'new' to create a new instance will introduce yet another point of confusion for Java users. It only takes 3 keystrokes anyway, and I do not see what the big deal is.2) the syntax that moves the method parameters to the class level is ugly and confusing...

I am confused. The article says:we wouldn’t be using C++ if we didn’t care about performance.But then there are many who insist that other languages (Java, Haskell, Eiffel etc) are on par with C++.So what gives? is C++ better performance-wise or not?My opinion is that C++ is better performance-wise, provided that you know what you are doing.

My job involves requirement documents (defense subcontractor).We are required to have a table at the end of the design document at connects each requirement to a piece of the design.The tests we make are also requirements-based, i.e. each requirement is tested thorougly.

> i think you touched on the hardest part bill, it's data.> data data data! data drives it all; how do i move it,> , how do i store it, how do i protect it, where do i get> from, is it clean, where should i put it, will i be> allowed to access it etc. > > i think modern programming completely misses this as a> major major point. there should be...

This topic is a continuation of 'what limits software growth'. The current software technology is more limiting than enabling, requiring programmers years of experience for relatively simple tasks like an online shop.The solution is to change the way operating systems work: instead of filesystems/processes/drivers/libraries we need...

> Yeah, I saw it, but I still think there should be more> concrete experiments before we try to reach any> conclusions on a programming model.Agreed, but I do not hold my breath. Big companies like Microsoft and Sun are interested more in selling than advancing the state of the art, the open source world is busy re-implementing commercial...

Other people have reached the same conclusion as well:http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=197975&cid=16221645

> First of all, what is the evidence that _something_ data> centric would be a winning solution? Are there any> experiments that would indicate that this would be the> case? Is there any practical experience that demonstrates> it? Also, what would this data-centric solution look like?> In science we use math to explain our observations. In>...

> Say I have 3 computers on the Internet (A,B,C). The> source data is on A, the processing software is on B and> the output is used by C. What's the easiest way to get> this done? Send the data from A to B to C, right? Now> compare this to the way functions work. Every call must> return. So you would send from A to B back to A and> finally out...