INVALID PAGE FAULT
Source code dump:
if( argument.base == opinion && argument.base.reasons == 0 ) poster.IQ = tree_stump.IQ;
else process_argument(assert(argument.location == 0x473F:0x890A:0xFE64983B), argument.size);
Invalid page fault detected.
Recovery initiated...
Cleaning process memory...done
Cleaning process resources...done
Relinking code...done
Restarting process...
*null_pointer is okay now*
quote:
Original post by daveb
Bottom line : you''re doing a great disservice to all the new programmers in this group by refusing to see outside of the C++ box. There''s just no argument. They''re going to have more problems learning and experimenting with hardcore C++ than if they used a simple blend of C/C++. Many of them will never be able to complete a cool idea/project they had because they get mired in deep C++. You''re shoving the "C++ is everything and if you can''t understand that, you''re obviously an idiot" mentality down their throats.
I''m outta here
Hmm...well, let''s get a couple of things straight, shall we? First, you''re the one who isn''t asking questions and is trying to force his opinions on other people. You were the one who immediately judged people for what you thought that they were thinking, without asking why they were doing these things. Second, I did not give my opinions on whether a Handle class or a typedef was needed, I simply listed some of the benefits of the Handle class because you were experiencing the temporal phenomena of tunnel vision. Third, the
only reason I posted is that I do not like the lopsidedness and narrow-mindedness of most C vs. C++ arguments. I pointed out the things in your arguments that were either 1) obviously untrue or 2) just being wildly assumed without looking at the whole picture.
Those were the only things that I said either necessitated or inferred stupidity. You have a right to your own opinion - that doesn''t mean that it is correct. Fourth, I questioned your "hard-earned wisdom" - is that a crime?
Now, if you are going to continue making overgeneralized, angry, and apparently groundless accusations, I may stop reading this post entirely. Refute anything I''ve said and prove it wrong, and I''ll apologize. But until you can prove me wrong I''m not going to apologize or change, because I think I am correct. If you can''t show me where I am wrong, why should I take your word for it?
And as for "doing a great disservice to all the new programmers in this group" - IIRC, I didn''t push my opinion on anyone else. You did. You have consistently read an attitude of "C++ for the sake of C++" into this post - just read over your comments and the replies before that, and ask yourself where anyone told Dire.Wolf to make a Handle class. Find it.
You didn''t even ask why he wanted to make the class! Personally, I don''t care if you use C++ or if you think it''s the most terrible language on the face of the earth, or if your opinion is anywhere in between. I just don''t care. Although smart people tend to have smart opinions (and vice versa), opinions certainly do NOT decide a person''s intelligence or the lack thereof. When you post your opinions on a public forum, expect people to disagree (other people can be subjective, too), and expect people to call your reasons for making those opinions into question (reasons are objective).
Another idea I don''t like is this:
class all_other_software {};
class games {};
It should be more like this:
class software {};
class business : public software {};
class games : public software {};
Games are software - specialized software, yes, but what isn''t? People should eliminate the mentality of "we just don''t do that here" and replace it with either "the game simply won''t be playable with that approach" or "hmm...we might sacrifice a little speed to allow a more extensible engine." I''m not talking about C vs. C++ right now, or low-level vs. high-level. I''m just talking about writing software. Things should be evaluated based on solid reasons that fit the situation rather than personal opinion.
Now we have arrived at the heart of the argument. You believe that C (or the C-like portion of C++) is less complex and easier to work with than C++, and that some parts are unnecessary for programming games. The argument is that C++ as a whole is too impractical to be of benefit, either from a performance standpoint, or just because of code readability. Is that your argument, or have I twisted/mis-stated anything? If so, please correct me, and accept that the following would be invalid (obviously).
If that is your argument, I disagree completely. C would (most obviously) be easier for you if you had more experience in C because of the skew in your viewpoints - you are naturally biased if you have used C more often. C will be easier than C++ for anyone who has more experience in C. So what? Does that mean that C++ is a harder language?
Games are software, and all of the C++ features are of benefit to software developers. If you want to disagree with that, that''s your opinion, but you can''t expect me to just take your word for it, nor can you expect other people to take your word for it. Now, you can go around and make lots of claims that C++ is too hard or C++ is too tricky or whatever you like, but people probably won''t listen to you if you come off like you''re ranting. Most likely, they''ll just use what they like, and what lots of other people say works for them (in a non-condescending, non-flame tone).
I still say that if you tried switching your entire development team to C++ without reading up on the nuances of the language, you should expect trouble, just as if you had tried switching to Java or Smalltalk, or whatever language you can bring to mind, and I don''t see how you can possibly expect the experience to give you a fair and unbiased observation (or "examination") of the language. Having less experience in a language (C, C++, etc.) doesn''t mean you are stupid. Experience != intelligence. Intelligence is the capacity to learn, experience is the amount of learning. If I tried to program in C# (apparently a C++ variant), I should expect to run into problems. It has some very different syntax and conventions, and although lots of things may be similar to C++, the differences will catch me if I don''t read up on the language. And it would be my own fault - I shouldn''t blame the language for my mistakes. Therefore, your sole citation of "experience" in the matter is invalid. Have you experience other than that?
And all of this is unbelievably pointless, because if you''ll read through the post, you still haven''t asked my opinion on whether the Handle class is worth the time in this particular instance (which we still have not defined), nor have I given it. So how is it even possible that I am pushing my opinion on other people here?
-
null_pointerSabre Multimedia
