[Dantheman]

KYA, on 11 Jun, 2009 - 02:31 PM, said:

You are advising people to avoid pointers whenever possible. That makes NO sense. I am posting in a vain attempt to get you to stop spouting such garbage over the interwebs.

I will always advise people to avoid unnecessary risks. That makes no sense to you, because you don't have enough experience. Don't bother trying to stop me.

This post has been edited by Dantheman: 11 June 2009 - 03:38 PM

[KYA]

Dantheman, on 11 Jun, 2009 - 03:35 PM, said:

KYA, on 11 Jun, 2009 - 02:31 PM, said:

You are advising people to avoid pointers whenever possible. That makes NO sense. I am posting in a vain attempt to get you to stop spouting such garbage over the interwebs.

Avoiding unnecessary risks makes no sense to you? You won't stop me from giving my advice. Don't even bother.

You're lump summing pointers, lock stock and barrel, into unnecessary risk? I'm starting to think you're lying about what you do for a living.

Hell, why don't we never turn on another computer again? There's too much risk, it could turn into Skynet.

This post has been edited by KYA: 11 June 2009 - 03:36 PM

[Dantheman]

No, what I'm saying is that there are applications where raw pointers are not needed. In such cases, they should be avoided in order to reduce the risk of bugs, memory leaks, and increased development time.

You're the only person here that's arguing against it.

This post has been edited by Dantheman: 11 June 2009 - 03:41 PM

[KYA]

Dantheman, on 11 Jun, 2009 - 03:40 PM, said:

No, what I'm saying is that there are applications where raw pointers are not needed. In such cases, they should be avoided in order to reduce the risk of bugs, memory leaks, and increased development time.

You're the only person here that's arguing against it.

Then you didn't read what I wrote. I had several examples where that would be decided in the design/planning stage. Human error/failure is not an acceptable avenue by which to recommend the non use of a computer language or concept. If that were the case 85% of the population would not be allowed to use a computer.



If everyone always avoided pointers, then we wouldn't have computers, we wouldn't have C or C++, and we'd certainly not have Java.

This post has been edited by KYA: 11 June 2009 - 03:47 PM

[Dantheman]

KYA, on 11 Jun, 2009 - 02:44 PM, said:

Dantheman, on 11 Jun, 2009 - 03:40 PM, said:

No, what I'm saying is that there are applications where raw pointers are not needed. In such cases, they should be avoided in order to reduce the risk of bugs, memory leaks, and increased development time.

You're the only person here that's arguing against it.

Then you didn't read what I wrote. I had several examples where that would be decided in the design/planning stage. Human error/failure is not an acceptable avenue by which to recommend the non use of a computer language or concept. If that were the case 85% of the population would not be allowed to use a computer.

Ok, here's what I'm saying. You need to write a program. And, while designing it, you figure out that C++\Java are both suitable for it (after analysing a shitload of different aspects about them - speed, portability, libraries, etc...).

I'm saying that you should choose Java, because it has a lower risk of bugs. Note, the fact that it doesn't have pointers, was not the only reason behind the choice. This is exactly the situation I am talking about - the situation where you have different alternatives.

If you're working with a real-time system, use C++. That's the situation you have no other alternative.

Quote

If everyone always avoided pointers, then we wouldn't have computers, we wouldn't have C or C++, and we'd certainly not have Java.

Again, pointers were needed in that situation.

P.S. My argument could also be interpreted as "don't use C++ if you don't need pointers". I haven't explicitly mentioned it, but I'll do it now anyway - no, that's not what I meant. Do use C++ if you need it for other situations like performance, and low-level facilities. But even as you are using it, try to avoid pointers when not needed. For example - you want to traverse array? Don't use pointer arithmetic. Use a for-loop and a counter.

This post has been edited by Dantheman: 11 June 2009 - 04:00 PM

[KYA]

See, we agree. Why are we fighting?

[Dantheman]

KYA, on 11 Jun, 2009 - 02:58 PM, said:

See, we agree. Why are we fighting?

Misunderstanding. I never told people to base the choice on the pointers alone. I simply meant what I said, if they are not needed, if there are safer alternatives that produce the same results, use those alternatives.

This was the recurring theme of Dijkstra's essays. He always made the claim that programming is so inherently difficult and complex that programmers need to harness every trick and abstraction possible in hopes of managing the complexity of it successfully.

This post has been edited by Dantheman: 11 June 2009 - 04:08 PM

[NeoTifa]

Who the fuck cares? Do the pointers contribute to the slowness? If no, then stfu.

[c0mrade]

NeoTifa, on 11 Jun, 2009 - 03:48 PM, said:

Who the fuck cares? Do the pointers contribute to the slowness? If no, then stfu.

I guess the people who know what pointers are care...

[NeoTifa]

I know what pointers are... sorta. But that has nothing to do with the original conversation. So...

[c0mrade]

But it does... Java trades (some, at least) performance for a higher level of abstraction and safer programming environment. Pointers are relevant in both cases.

I wouldn't usually say anything but the phrases "who the fuck cares" and "stfu" swayed my attitude.

If you're over your head and can't manage to keep up with the conversation, don't try to join in with offensive comments!

[Locke]

c0mrade, on 11 Jun, 2009 - 09:36 PM, said:

If you're over your head and can't manage to keep up with the conversation, don't try to join in with offensive comments!

You haven't known NeoTifa very long, have you?

This post has been edited by Locke: 11 June 2009 - 08:40 PM

[Dantheman]

PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD

[skyhawk133]

Shame this thread turned in to such an unprofessional and immature mud slinging contest.

In the future, let's try to keep things on topic, and leave the "feeeeeelings" out of it.

Thread closed.