a lot of the central functionality that my code uses - things like slots/ signals and factory systems - have to be jury-rigged by the system or else third-party products that break the debugger and make it difficult to follow the code have to be used.
it's also cumbersome to code in and difficult to follow unless there are really strong coding standards. i'm not really in love with c++
It is not what I would call my favorite programming language, but on the plus side it is an order of magnitude more efficient than most of the cleaner alternatives
i've never used ruby. i came from a procedural background - very structured, functional programming - and was pretty good at matlab. object oriented is a whole different thing and i'm having a hard time figuring out how to wrap my head around it.
a lot of the central functionality that my code uses - things like slots/ signals and factory systems - have to be jury-rigged by the system or else third-party products that break the debugger and make it difficult to follow the code have to be used.
it's also cumbersome to code in and difficult to follow unless there are really strong coding standards. i'm not really in love with c++
It is not what I would call my favorite programming language, but on the plus side it is an order of magnitude more efficient than most of the cleaner alternatives
it just seems strange to me that signal/ slot has to be jerry-rigged with null-pointer functions or bizarre boost libraries if it plays such critical role in most C++ development. also i'm frustrated with factory implementation in C++.
i mean - the rationale for these kinds of patterns makes sense to me. i am just finding the level of abstraction kind of difficult and the implementation really clumsy
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
i've never used ruby. i came from a procedural background - very structured, functional programming - and was pretty good at matlab. object oriented is a whole different thing and i'm having a hard time figuring out how to wrap my head around it.
Maybe look into something like some of Alan Kay's stuff on Smalltalk's design if you really want a better grounding in solid OO (although it doesn't cleanly map into C__, which is rooted more in the quasi-OO of Simula).
Or if your functional background extends into Lisp, some material on CLOS and the meta-object protocol.
i mean - the rationale for these kinds of patterns makes sense to me. i am just finding the level of abstraction kind of difficult and the implementation really clumsy
It can really only be understood in terms of historical context, I think, because it is really clumsy, and that clumsiness stems from its historical constraints and the desire to never make a method call more expensive than a pointer dereference, which is deeply constraining.
Also I am watching Spectacular Spider-Man. They did a great job with this show.
You and Quid have both endorsed it now. I am intrigued.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Okay I've explored the MLP broniverse enough for one week.
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
also i picked up and read The Filth at the recommendation of @jacobkosh. Not really sure how I feel about it. I guess I liked it, but kind of feel like I didn't get it.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
i mean - the rationale for these kinds of patterns makes sense to me. i am just finding the level of abstraction kind of difficult and the implementation really clumsy
It can really only be understood in terms of historical context, I think, because it is really clumsy, and that clumsiness stems from its historical constraints and the desire to never make a method call more expensive than a pointer dereference, which is deeply constraining.
The abstraction is difficult for me as well. I mean, like, with the factory pattern, the object I'm going to create isn't even really explicitly defined in code.
Really, I think the big problem here is that I'm cutting my teeth on mature commercial code with the cruft of 12 years rather than a small project that i could completely wrap my head around. I'd probably understand boost signal/slots and factory patterns a lot more intuitively if they weren't tied up in enormous projects and I weren't learning 100 other things at the same time.
Nothing specific; (well, not now, but any code I have questions about is on my work computer). I spend a few hours a day reading some books, and doing various exercises because it's the safer alternative to browsing the internet at work. I really like the structure of it, but I basically started doing this without doing any reading on what kind of language this was and wanted some Forum Opinions on what I'm getting myself into.
And if there are any obvious beginner resources I'm overlooking; I rely heavily on stack overflow and railcasts. And browsing github when I'm too lazy to try to solve any problems.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
i mean - the rationale for these kinds of patterns makes sense to me. i am just finding the level of abstraction kind of difficult and the implementation really clumsy
It can really only be understood in terms of historical context, I think, because it is really clumsy, and that clumsiness stems from its historical constraints and the desire to never make a method call more expensive than a pointer dereference, which is deeply constraining.
The abstraction is difficult for me as well. I mean, like, with the factory pattern, the object I'm going to create isn't even really explicitly defined in code.
Really, I think the big problem here is that I'm cutting my teeth on mature commercial code with the cruft of 12 years rather than a small project that i could completely wrap my head around. I'd probably understand boost signal/slots and factory patterns a lot more intuitively if they weren't tied up in enormous projects and I weren't learning 100 other things at the same time.
The Factory thing....
it shows up a lot in big code bases with dedicated architects that want to build something that is configurable 12 ways from Sunday with minimal changes to the source, but the typical experience is that whatever XML file or the like that's specifying the concrete subclass your Factory builds at runtime will never be altered and the whole thing is complexity for the sake of satisfying architecture astronauts.
But occasionally it's really useful. Gamma et al's Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software is probably a must-read, if you haven't already.
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Posts
It is not what I would call my favorite programming language, but on the plus side it is an order of magnitude more efficient than most of the cleaner alternatives
I also used a new brand of blades for my last shave. Hmmm.
I am, if you had a question or something
You need yourself a faerie to suck.
i've never used ruby. i came from a procedural background - very structured, functional programming - and was pretty good at matlab. object oriented is a whole different thing and i'm having a hard time figuring out how to wrap my head around it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAA
That's such an inappropriate slur to use.
8->
That's kind of personal, isn't it? Besides, he's engaged or whatever with Frankie.
it just seems strange to me that signal/ slot has to be jerry-rigged with null-pointer functions or bizarre boost libraries if it plays such critical role in most C++ development. also i'm frustrated with factory implementation in C++.
i mean - the rationale for these kinds of patterns makes sense to me. i am just finding the level of abstraction kind of difficult and the implementation really clumsy
....Possibly.
Maybe look into something like some of Alan Kay's stuff on Smalltalk's design if you really want a better grounding in solid OO (although it doesn't cleanly map into C__, which is rooted more in the quasi-OO of Simula).
Or if your functional background extends into Lisp, some material on CLOS and the meta-object protocol.
i don't really know how to formulate a proper response to this i don't think
let me go consult my etiquette manual
should be nice i hope.
There used to be a person here that posted My Little Pony videos but I have DELETED THAT PERSON FROM MY BRAIN.
It can really only be understood in terms of historical context, I think, because it is really clumsy, and that clumsiness stems from its historical constraints and the desire to never make a method call more expensive than a pointer dereference, which is deeply constraining.
You and Quid have both endorsed it now. I am intrigued.
How would you remember you deleted me then?
It is also VH endorsed.
Reminds me a lot of Ultimate Spider-man in some ways, other ways it stands on its own being awesome.
I SEE NOTHING BUT WHITE NOISE
VH endorsed it? Fuck that, never touching it.
The abstraction is difficult for me as well. I mean, like, with the factory pattern, the object I'm going to create isn't even really explicitly defined in code.
Really, I think the big problem here is that I'm cutting my teeth on mature commercial code with the cruft of 12 years rather than a small project that i could completely wrap my head around. I'd probably understand boost signal/slots and factory patterns a lot more intuitively if they weren't tied up in enormous projects and I weren't learning 100 other things at the same time.
Nothing specific; (well, not now, but any code I have questions about is on my work computer). I spend a few hours a day reading some books, and doing various exercises because it's the safer alternative to browsing the internet at work. I really like the structure of it, but I basically started doing this without doing any reading on what kind of language this was and wanted some Forum Opinions on what I'm getting myself into.
And if there are any obvious beginner resources I'm overlooking; I rely heavily on stack overflow and railcasts. And browsing github when I'm too lazy to try to solve any problems.
Hi [chat]
It's hard out there for a fluffer...
The Factory thing....
it shows up a lot in big code bases with dedicated architects that want to build something that is configurable 12 ways from Sunday with minimal changes to the source, but the typical experience is that whatever XML file or the like that's specifying the concrete subclass your Factory builds at runtime will never be altered and the whole thing is complexity for the sake of satisfying architecture astronauts.
But occasionally it's really useful. Gamma et al's Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software is probably a must-read, if you haven't already.
I'm right-handed