Animated text

This is a discussion on Animated text within the C++ Programming forums, part of the General Programming Boards category; That was funny But I was expecting it... You don't have a problem with the operator. You simply have a ...

  1. #16
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,488
    That was funny
    But I was expecting it...

    You don't have a problem with the operator. You simply have a problem of bad code.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  2. #17
    The superhaterodyne twomers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    2,262
    ... I've just realized how off topic this is.

  3. #18
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,488
    Not really. Off topic would be discussing why for is better than against.

    As a side note, I do hope you realize the examples you provided are in fact yet another reason to choose !=. The bug inside the loop will be clearly visible once one runs the program. There's no telling what will happen on the other instance where one chooses < or <=.

    The program may crash (which is good) or keep running and yield undefined results (which is very bad).
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  4. #19
    The superhaterodyne twomers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    2,262
    I agree, but you didn't specify that in your request for flaws with the '!=' (nit picking and whatnot)

  5. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    545
    The only thing that I was thinking with my statement is that ifyour computer has some horrible glitch and then jumps over your limiting number in your for loop and that would mean that it would still be != and so would go into an infinite loop.

  6. #21
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,488
    If such a thing happened then you, I, and the 16 megaton warhead launching engineer over there running your application, would want the program to crash. An infinit loop will do just that.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  7. #22
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,714
    If you want to get the safest loop in the world, use the for_each algorithm. I'm sure they do this almost constantly in the nuclear weapons launching program.

    Otherwise, for programs that we write, it is generally immaterial how we control for: Mario has merely proved that operator != is moderately safer in that it might crash the program, I'm more inclined to believe that this is undefined and the loop could run forever. > and < impose a ceiling which will stop the loop for sure.

  8. #23
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,488
    Mario has merely proved that operator != is moderately safer in that it might crash the program,
    No. More in the sense that it doesn't hide a bug in your code. It helps expose it. The "ceiling" provided by < or > operators may lead to undefined behavior if there was a bug and no checking being done after the loop ends. It has more potential to create an hard to find bug.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #24
    ZuK
    ZuK is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    1,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F.
    If such a thing happened then you, I, and the 16 megaton warhead launching engineer over there running your application, would want the program to crash. An infinit loop will do just that.
    Me, being an engeneer ( luckily not working with warheads ), would prefer to keep the application running. I really hate it when I loose control of a process just because some possibly unimportant application crashes or locks the OS and I have to wait for a reboot. But I guess that is just a matter of perspective.
    Kurt

  10. #25
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,488
    Really? You still wanted your application to keep running under undefined behavior?

    Maybe perhaps if the loop ended with a 1 being sent to OrderLaunch(bool yesno)?
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  11. #26
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,714
    I think the argument is still semantic at best. It's... actually difficult for me to believe that you think != is going to help you find a seg-fault if you dereference memory that doesn't belong to your custom container class, or loop past the end of a c-string. Or why you think it's difficult to inspect your loop after it outputs the results X times more than it should.

    Don't loop the launch instruction! Verify it via Alpha Niner OP 314159-A. Or use for_each. Geez. Nobody listens to me.

  12. #27
    ZuK
    ZuK is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    1,990
    I am saying that as long an application runs there is still a chance for some corrective action. If it's dead no chance.
    Kurt

  13. #28
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,488
    Citizen,

    I'm not advocating anything. I merely suggested that != might be a better approach to for loops. And I' sure I made it perfectly clear it is mostly a matter of taste. My opinion and that of those who defend this point of view is no more valid than anyone else's. Maybe if you stop, and slowly read the thread again you will see.

    So please, don't step ahead of me in the line of "nobody is listening".
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  14. #29
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,714
    I believe it you read my post wrong.
    > More in the sense that [not equal to] doesn't hide a bug in your code.
    My previous reply was based on this statement, which clerly is no more true than what would happen if you used > or <. I did not say you were advocating anything, but what you are using to defend your point of view, and recommend that we switch from something natural is not making your point any stronger.

    > You still wanted your application to keep running under undefined behavior?
    Stopping a loop after i is not less than < 80 is defined. != would still be true, what happens?

    My opinion is thus, and I will not repeat it.
    We use != when it is necessary. If the loop condition will become an issue, for_each is good most of the time. Otherwise, as I've said, it's immaterial how to control for.
    Last edited by whiteflags; 07-08-2006 at 01:23 PM.

  15. #30
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,488
    My opinion is thus, and I will not repeat it.
    We use != when it is necessary. If the loop condition will become an issue, for_each is good most of the time. Otherwise, as I've said, it's immaterial how to control for.
    That was my bloody point from the beginning! Thanks for adding nothing to this thread.


    > You still wanted your application to keep running under undefined behavior?
    Stopping a loop after i is not less than < 80 is defined. != would still be true, what happens?
    I am really not going to reply to this citizen. It's... no words
    Last edited by Mario F.; 07-08-2006 at 01:27 PM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Deleting Text from a Text file
    By Daved in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-04-2006, 08:47 PM
  2. struct question
    By caduardo21 in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-31-2005, 03:49 PM
  3. Appending text to an edit control
    By dit6a9 in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-13-2004, 09:52 PM
  4. Scrolling The Text
    By GaPe in forum C Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-14-2002, 04:33 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-13-2002, 05:45 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21