On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:30:32 -0700, Joel Koltner
<zapwire-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

>josephkk wrote:
>> I must agree.  That blazing idiot Strousup thought that smalltalk like
>> objects really could be smoothly bolted onto C.  Thirty years later it=
 is
>> finally becoming apparent to even him that it wasn't the best idea.
>
>Hey, if you think object bolting in C++ is bad, check out Matlab some=20
>time -- amazing they managed to pull it off at all. :-)
>
>Pragmatically speaking, C++ is pretty good -- it offered a lot of the=20
>power of "pure" OO languages such as Smalltalk or LISP, and as history=20
>has shown, none of those languages have ever been hugely successful=20
>commercially... whereas C++ very much has been.  I.e., the choice wasn't=
=20
>ever C++ or Smalltalk, it was C++ or C.
>
>I am a little surprised that Apple decided to make Objective C the=20
>primary programming language of iThings ... I suppose that's what you=20
>end up with if you don't like C++ that much but don't want to suck all=20
>the performance out of your app using something like LISP.

LISP isn't really object oriented.  It is actually something even more
different.

?-)

josephkk wrote:
> I must agree.  That blazing idiot Strousup thought that smalltalk like
> objects really could be smoothly bolted onto C.  Thirty years later it is
> finally becoming apparent to even him that it wasn't the best idea.

Hey, if you think object bolting in C++ is bad, check out Matlab some 
time -- amazing they managed to pull it off at all. :-)

Pragmatically speaking, C++ is pretty good -- it offered a lot of the 
power of "pure" OO languages such as Smalltalk or LISP, and as history 
has shown, none of those languages have ever been hugely successful 
commercially... whereas C++ very much has been.  I.e., the choice wasn't 
ever C++ or Smalltalk, it was C++ or C.

I am a little surprised that Apple decided to make Objective C the 
primary programming language of iThings ... I suppose that's what you 
end up with if you don't like C++ that much but don't want to suck all 
the performance out of your app using something like LISP.

On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Mar 2012 06:06:41 +0100) it happened "Vinzent Hoefler"
<0439279208b62c95f1880bf0f8776eeb@t-domaingrabbing.de> wrote in
<op.wbattf0dlzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>:

>Nico Coesel [3] wrote:


>> Spoken like someone unwilling to learn something new. C++ actually
>> offers a lot to avoid common mistakes made in C.
>
>And enables you to make a whole lot new ones instead.
>
>> When used right
>
>Yeah. That's the hard part.

Right C++ was invented by Stroussup because he could not program.
He did not want to really learn how to program in C,
so he invented his own kludges so it looked like he could.
That hit big time with all the other ones who could not program either.

It is a normal thing, human nature, people do not know how to do something,.
and then do not want to learn, so they make their own solutions.
that is why so see a new programming language every year,
and the creators of those shouting from the treetops that
it makes everything so simple that any clueless idiot can use it.
Now you have 2 problems, clueless idiots using languages written by clueless idiots.
Stroussup should be in that jail on Cuba,
His ideas created more bloat than you can imagine,
but OK, C++ compiler writers benefit [1], so do hardware vendors, so it has its supporter,
even beyond those who never learned to program in C.

[1] They never seemed to agree on the correct interpretation of that language [2] though,.

[2] Speech disability,

[3] hates PICs too, his PIC projects did not work.

On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Mar 2012 22:07:38 GMT) it happened nico@puntnl.niks
(Nico Coesel) wrote in <4f63b8b9.40329312@news.kpn.nl>:

>Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On a sunny day (15 Mar 2012 05:07:28 GMT) it happened Jasen Betts
>><jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in <jjrteg$m3e$1@reversiblemaps.ath.cx>:
>>>
>>>> Much of the extension to the C language is perhaps to cater for those who
>>>> cannot program or have amnesia, or even worse altzheimer,
>>>
>>>you say that like you think C is for people who cant't handle assembler :)
>>
>>No I was referring to C++
>>Cannot stand it.
>>It is a crime against humanity.
>
>Spoken like someone unwilling to learn something new. C++ actually
>offers a lot to avoid common mistakes made in C. When used right you
>can create more robust programs and cut down on time wasted on
>debugging.

mm, 'when used right' you can dig your grave with a thoothpic too.
 
LOL

A clueless Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:

>On 2012-03-15, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:10:58 +0000 (UTC)) it happened Andrew
>> Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in
>><slrn3vfsjm41k2.7go.andrews@sdf.lonestar.org>:
>>
>>>On 2012-03-15, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So then there are the guys running a 60 Hz display, probably
>>>> most of the peesees, and feeding that with HDMI into the latest LCD TV,
>>>> and then play a 50 Hz movie on it.
>>>> I have tried all that to see what happens, and it is shit.
>>>
>>>...and even if you DO match the frame rates you are still watching
>>>a film originally shot at 24 Hz.
>>
>> We play the 24 films at 25,
>> That makes them shorter, a good thing with most Hollywood crap,
>> and it also increases the pitch of the voices,
>> so we think all those Hollywood actors are pussies.
>
>At 25 Hz PAL, sure,

This is Europe, 50 Hz rules, PAL is a color system, not a standard that says anything about H or V frequencies.

>but not 30 Hz NTSC.



>You can make exactly the
>same point with imported videos.

What point?


>And as for the out of pitch
>soundtrack that hasn't been true for 20 years or so.

Oh really? Sure there is digital processing,
but you can play old 35 mm material with optical sound track,
and then it is true,

> Similarly,
>the lies you refer to much later in a largely irrelevant post are
>deinterlacing artifcats rather than anything to do with frame frame.

Look up interlacing on wikipedia, so you  get a clue.

Lies? What sort of agenda do you have? Are you actually involved in the pushing
of that strawberry pudding? Or some Linux distro that tries to
sell itself as media player?
Or maybe you are a self-justifying victim of buying a strawberry?
Get a life man, you sound like the average American clueless idiot.


>Get ssome current understanding, come back in six months if you
>still have an axe to grind.  It's perfectly clear to me now that
>that is all this is.

I pointed out that if you sell your strawberry soup as 'mediaplayer',
that then that is a bit of an over statement, now is it not?
Now that may be hard to swallow for those who forked out cash for that purpose,
or for those who want to make some cash selling that stuff,
but it remains a simple commonly known fact for those who have a clue.


 
So, in short:
Maybe you should come back later with a better temper, some sense of humor,
and most of all a clue.

Conversation seems wasted in you, not one technical argument in your postings,
you do not even know the difference between PAL and frame rates.
And you are too arrogant to learn, and to insulting to teach.
As my PC often used to say,
beep

Nico Coesel wrote:

> Spoken like someone unwilling to learn something new. C++ actually
> offers a lot to avoid common mistakes made in C.

And enables you to make a whole lot new ones instead.

> When used right

Yeah. That's the hard part.


Vinzent.

-- 
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents.
     -- Nathaniel Borenstein

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 22:07:38 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

>Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On a sunny day (15 Mar 2012 05:07:28 GMT) it happened Jasen Betts
>><jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in <jjrteg$m3e$1@reversiblemaps.ath.cx>:
>>>
>>>> Much of the extension to the C language is perhaps to cater for =
those who
>>>> cannot program or have amnesia, or even worse altzheimer,
>>>
>>>you say that like you think C is for people who cant't handle =
assembler :)
>>
>>No I was referring to C++
>>Cannot stand it.
>>It is a crime against humanity.
>
>Spoken like someone unwilling to learn something new. C++ actually
>offers a lot to avoid common mistakes made in C. When used right you
>can create more robust programs and cut down on time wasted on
>debugging.

So does Pascal, Object Pascal, Ada, Perl, Python and many other =
languages.
And guess what, none of them have the same mind bending inconsistencies
that C++ endured for so many years.

?-)

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:47:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (15 Mar 2012 05:07:28 GMT) it happened Jasen Betts
><jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in <jjrteg$m3e$1@reversiblemaps.ath.cx>:
>>
>>> Much of the extension to the C language is perhaps to cater for those=
 who
>>> cannot program or have amnesia, or even worse altzheimer,
>>
>>you say that like you think C is for people who cant't handle assembler=
 :)
>
>No I was referring to C++
>Cannot stand it.
>It is a crime against humanity.

I must agree.  That blazing idiot Strousup thought that smalltalk like
objects really could be smoothly bolted onto C.  Thirty years later it is
finally becoming apparent to even him that it wasn't the best idea.

?-)

Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (15 Mar 2012 05:07:28 GMT) it happened Jasen Betts
><jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in <jjrteg$m3e$1@reversiblemaps.ath.cx>:
>>
>>> Much of the extension to the C language is perhaps to cater for those who
>>> cannot program or have amnesia, or even worse altzheimer,
>>
>>you say that like you think C is for people who cant't handle assembler :)
>
>No I was referring to C++
>Cannot stand it.
>It is a crime against humanity.

Spoken like someone unwilling to learn something new. C++ actually
offers a lot to avoid common mistakes made in C. When used right you
can create more robust programs and cut down on time wasted on
debugging.

-- 
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

On 2012-03-15, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:10:58 +0000 (UTC)) it happened Andrew
> Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in
><slrn3vfsjm41k2.7go.andrews@sdf.lonestar.org>:
>
>>On 2012-03-15, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So then there are the guys running a 60 Hz display, probably
>>> most of the peesees, and feeding that with HDMI into the latest LCD TV,
>>> and then play a 50 Hz movie on it.
>>> I have tried all that to see what happens, and it is shit.
>>
>>...and even if you DO match the frame rates you are still watching
>>a film originally shot at 24 Hz.
>
> We play the 24 films at 25,
> That makes them shorter, a good thing with most Hollywood crap,
> and it also increases the pitch of the voices,
> so we think all those Hollywood actors are pussies.

At 25 Hz PAL, sure, but not 30 Hz NTSC.  You can make exactly the
same point with imported videos.  And as for the out of pitch
soundtrack that hasn't been true for 20 years or so.  Similarly,
the lies you refer to much later in a largely irrelevant post are
deinterlacing artifcats rather than anything to do with frame frame.

Get ssome current understanding, come back in six months if you
still have an axe to grind.  It's perfectly clear to me now that
that is all this is.

-- 
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org