On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:55:05 +1100, Matthew wrote:

> I'm sure Regan would be better able to give a definitive logical objection here, but it seems like the conclusion you've drawn has had at least one hopeful leap from the premise of earlier in the post.

No, No, No. please, no.... Did you have to do that?!

What an invitation. :-(

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:cv0otb$1lmn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Ant" <Ant_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cuvje9$77s$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> In article <cuo83m$1mjn$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>> >
>> >http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm
>> >
>> >We've risen to number 29!
>> >
>>
>> Doesn't anyone else find strange that D is higher then objective-C?
>
> Not me. Back in the ancient times, when dinosaurs and C ruled, I was
> looking
> for a way to set my C compiler (Datalight C) apart from the crowd. I
> ran
> across Objective-C by Stepstone and C++ by AT&T. Both were used about
> equally, and there was fierce debate about which one was going to be
> the
> future.
>
> But Stepstone wanted royalties for anyone wanting to do Objective-C. I
> contacted AT&T, and they graciously said I could implement a C++
> compiler,
> call it C++, and not pay royalties to AT&T. (They also thanked me for
> being
> the only one who ever bothered to even ask!)
>
> That settled it for me, C++ was the future.

LOL! Just think what might have been. :-)

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:39:35 +1300, Regan Heath wrote:

> I'll post my link again: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
> 
> It describes the form of a deductive argument using boolean logic, how/when it's useful and how to go about it in addition to common fallacies in logic.
> 
> In this case it sounds like Matthew disagrees with an earlier premise or the inference from an earlier premise to a later one.
> 
> Regan

Atheism and logic ... hmmm.  Seems like there's a faulty premise there. :-)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:47:04 -0800, John Reimer <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:55:05 +1100, Matthew wrote:
>
>> I'm sure Regan would be better able to give a definitive logical
>> objection here, but it seems like the conclusion you've drawn has had at
>> least one hopeful leap from the premise of earlier in the post.
>
> No, No, No. please, no.... Did you have to do that?!
>
> What an invitation. :-(

Yeah, I couldn't resist.
Either he wanted me to, or he was .. either way I thought I'd play my part.

Regan

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:53:14 -0800, John Reimer <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:39:35 +1300, Regan Heath wrote:
>
>> I'll post my link again:
>> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
>>
>> It describes the form of a deductive argument using boolean logic,
>> how/when it's useful and how to go about it in addition to common
>> fallacies in logic.
>>
>> In this case it sounds like Matthew disagrees with an earlier premise or
>> the inference from an earlier premise to a later one.
>>
>> Regan
>
> Atheism and logic ... hmmm.  Seems like there's a faulty premise there. :-)

I tend to agree, but lets no go there. :)
Regan

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:08:12 +1300, Regan Heath wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:53:14 -0800, John Reimer <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:39:35 +1300, Regan Heath wrote:
>>
>>> I'll post my link again: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
>>>
>>> It describes the form of a deductive argument using boolean logic, how/when it's useful and how to go about it in addition to common fallacies in logic.
>>>
>>> In this case it sounds like Matthew disagrees with an earlier premise or the inference from an earlier premise to a later one.
>>>
>>> Regan
>>
>> Atheism and logic ... hmmm.  Seems like there's a faulty premise there. :-)
> 
> I tend to agree, but lets no go there. :)
> Regan

He he... good call.  I don't think I'm up to one of those endless debates either.

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:cv0pqj$1mp1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:cv0otb$1lmn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > But Stepstone wanted royalties for anyone wanting to do Objective-C. I
> > contacted AT&T, and they graciously said I could implement a C++
> > compiler,
> > call it C++, and not pay royalties to AT&T. (They also thanked me for
> > being
> > the only one who ever bothered to even ask!)
> >
> > That settled it for me, C++ was the future.
>
> LOL! Just think what might have been. :-)

Zortech's C++ compiler came out at just the nick of time to generate critical mass for C++. Before ZTC++, programming in C++ on the PC wasn't very practical (cfront just didn't adapt well to memory models, was expensive, didn't mesh well with PC C backends, and was very slow). ZTC++ opened up the PC programming market for C++, and that was a critical factor in the adoption of C++ by the programming industry. ZTC++'s success pretty much terminated the development interest of major compiler vendors in other OOP languages or their own proprietary OOP languages.

Ever wonder why COM's vtable layout matches ZTC++'s ? <g>

Walter wrote:
> "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message
> news:cv0pqj$1mp1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
>>news:cv0otb$1lmn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>>But Stepstone wanted royalties for anyone wanting to do Objective-C. I
>>>contacted AT&T, and they graciously said I could implement a C++
>>>compiler,
>>>call it C++, and not pay royalties to AT&T. (They also thanked me for
>>>being
>>>the only one who ever bothered to even ask!)
>>>
>>>That settled it for me, C++ was the future.
>>
>>LOL! Just think what might have been. :-)
> 
> 
> Zortech's C++ compiler came out at just the nick of time to generate
> critical mass for C++. Before ZTC++, programming in C++ on the PC wasn't
> very practical (cfront just didn't adapt well to memory models, was
> expensive, didn't mesh well with PC C backends, and was very slow). ZTC++
> opened up the PC programming market for C++, and that was a critical factor
> in the adoption of C++ by the programming industry. ZTC++'s success pretty
> much terminated the development interest of major compiler vendors in other
> OOP languages or their own proprietary OOP languages.
> 
> Ever wonder why COM's vtable layout matches ZTC++'s ? <g>
> 
> 

The Zortech C++ compiler was what I learned C++ on (well.. the C++ back then was not near as complicated as it is now) during my highschool days.  The "demo" compiler came with a book I had mail-order purchased.   I don't remember what the name of the book is now, though.

- John R.

In article <cv0tej$1q2v$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:cv0pqj$1mp1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:cv0otb$1lmn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> > But Stepstone wanted royalties for anyone wanting to do Objective-C. I
>> > contacted AT&T, and they graciously said I could implement a C++
>> > compiler,
>> > call it C++, and not pay royalties to AT&T. (They also thanked me for
>> > being
>> > the only one who ever bothered to even ask!)
>> >
>> > That settled it for me, C++ was the future.
>>
>> LOL! Just think what might have been. :-)
>
>Zortech's C++ compiler came out at just the nick of time to generate critical mass for C++. Before ZTC++, programming in C++ on the PC wasn't very practical (cfront just didn't adapt well to memory models, was expensive, didn't mesh well with PC C backends, and was very slow). ZTC++ opened up the PC programming market for C++, and that was a critical factor in the adoption of C++ by the programming industry. ZTC++'s success pretty much terminated the development interest of major compiler vendors in other OOP languages or their own proprietary OOP languages.
>

Ahh, so we can blame you then. Are you trying to make amends with D?

:-)

Matthew wrote:
> I wasn't looking at it in that way. I don't look at _any_ code on ng posts for bugworthiness. That's what I do in code reviews, or in development of code, or when determining whether or not a particular library has enough merit to bother unzipping it. On ngs, I assume we're talking 'concept' and glimpse code for its feel.
> 
> Hence, I wouldn't read anything into my having not seen the bug, since I didn't even delve into what the code did. I took it in the spirit of the context of the discussion at that time.

Oh, what a shame. I made such a great effort in introducing
the two bugs. ;-)

Honestly, I too read the examples here the way you do,
but writing mine, I kinda forgot about it.

(
Not to mention the bugs i later found,
that I didn't intend on.   ;-(
)