Re: [LAD] Looking for an introduction to rt programming with a gui

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 10:03:20PM -0400, Joshua D. Boyd wrote:
> On 05/23/10 16:22, Chris Cannam wrote:
> >On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Chris Cannam
> > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 9:41 AM, torbenh<torbenh@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> >> but i find the equivalent c++ easier to read.
> >> assuming we have a proper modern c++ osc lib:
> >>
> >> boost::unique_future<OscMsg>
> >> osc_recv (OscPeer peer, std::string path)
> >> {
> >> boost::shared_ptr< boost::promise<OscMsg> > spromise(
> new boost::promise<OscMsg> )
> >> peer.add_handler( path, [=]( OscMsg msg )
> >> {
> >> [...]
> >
> ><cannam@email-addr-hidden-day-breakfast.com> wrote:
> >>I have to say this combination of Boost plus Weird Stuff From The
> >>Future is no more readable to me (as a long-time C++ programmer) than
> >>the Clojure example.
> >
> >... by which I don't mean to imply that I can't understand it
> >(although, with C++, there is always the possibility that I _think_ I
> >can understand it but am sadly mistaken because of some weird shit
> >happening behind the scenes). I just mean that I can't simply read
> >it.
> >
> >This may be one really serious advantage for the everything-in-C types
> >-- a competent C programmer can understand any C, whereas C++ is big
> >enough to have many different "schools of C++" which are mutually
> >unintelligible without further study.
> >
> >That's also the seed of its popularity, I suppose -- everyone can
> >write the way they like in it, and if you can't work out how to do it
> >properly, you can always drop back into C.
>
> I think it isn't difficult to read because it is C++ or Boost. It
> is difficult to read because it involves concepts like promises and
> futures, which are advanced topics that a lot of people (myself
> included) aren't adequately familiar with (at least not without
> referring to a cheat sheet). If we rewrote that with C types using
> a C type future/promise system, I'm not sure it would be any easier
> to read for those of us who don't intuitively grok promises and
> futures.

yeah. but without understanding what a promise is. you dont even
understand what @p in clojure means.
now try to find that out using google :)

the point i wanted to make is that when comparing young modern languages
to current c++03 (which practically is just a small correction to c++98)
c++ looses.

but c++0x can keep up.

-- 
torben Hohn
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev