czw., 1 sie 2024 o 13:48 organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Galaxy
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Galaxy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > czw., 1 sie 2024 o 12:39 organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
> > >
> > > Please watch some of Leslie Lamport's videos.
> > > He is a Turing award holder.
> > > He explains exactly the opposite of what you say.
> > >
> >
> > What video? and how opposite? And opposite to what statement?
> > You do not address any of my concerns, only again avoid hard questions.
> > If I am wrong you should be able to quote me and exactly show where I am wrong.
> >
> > That's true and fair.
> >
> > So allow me answering it.
> >
> > In your analogy, about not approaching operations table unless someone checks you are qualified.
> > Given that logic, who checked the first surgeon in the world? And against what?
>
> By row of dead bodies after failed operations, first surgeons were
> simply people with sharp knives,
> but now after centuries of trial and error we can ask new ones if they
> do their homework and will
> not repeat mistakes made by the first generation of surgeons that in
> many cases harm more than help.
>
> C++ is older than me, many brilliant people work on it but even they
> did fail and make blunders during
> standardization. And we all need to learn from this, understand and
> try not to repeat it again.
> Without a close understanding of the standard and its history we will
> repeat these blunders or even create bigger ones.
>
> This is why people ask you about your understanding of C++, because if
> you try to build something
> on misunderstand of some of its parts, then whole construct will be
> misaligned and fail to reach its goals.
> Like building a home, some failure in foundations will cause the whole
> home to crack or even collapse.
>


> So let's make an interview test before anyone is allowed to even post anything.
> That's what you suggest?
> But even then.
> If he passes that rigorous test, that means he is already well framed in that thinking box.
> How can he pull anything new, then?
>

Where did I say something like this? Suggestion itself is many times
proof of passing this
"test" (simply how it fits current C++), if suggestions do not pass this,
then people ask the person for credentials.
And yours fails it and why ask you how good you understand C++.

> >
> > Only trust, help, discussion and good intentions can encourage that first surgeon to break through.
> >
>
> Trust based on what? If I meet someone and he use correct language and
> he show that he know what he saying
> then I can risk trusting him to allow him to do first aid in car crash
> but if some things that he say is bizarre and not match
> exactly common knowledge then how I could risk giving him access to a
> car crash victims?
>



> Ask him about his work plan, follow his steps, try making sense out of them, if you can't ask for clarification, if you trust enough his approach and sound plausible even if it is unconventional, then he can dive in.
>

We did that and the answers were not satisfactory.


> > Yes, we have an accumalation of knowledge of experts in C++ language in a form of a standard, but that is always a subject of scrutiny. What was advocate for today, can be advocate against tomorrow, it is just a matter of someone bold enough to contest the status-quo.
> >
> > Did this address you concerns?
>
> This is not if someone is "bold" but if he is "correct" or even more
> if its "useful".
> We are still waiting for real life code that show usefuls of this
> change and proves that current C++ can't solve the same problem
> easily.
> We already had `std::fucnction` (and its flavors) and `std::any` why
> C++ need more?
>




> Before std::function and std::any, they were saying the same,
> "We have callbacks, and union, what can't we do using them?"
>

Because `std::any` and `std::function` were superior that old way.
And this was proven before as ther was used very popular
Boost libraries that do the same thing.


> You want to see working code?
> That's not easy and quick as you think, especially for one person.
>

You do not understand what is asked from you, "real world examples" is
mock code that use your feature to solve real problems that many C++
programs face now and current solutions are subpar.
You create "Tony tables" that show what solution is better.

And example you prove where impossible to implement in current
compilers (even if did not do anything useful). This is why other
ask you to prove them wrong and implement it and show its possible.

See case of C++ modules, it had a couple of diffrent importations before
proposal was finished and accepted to standard.
And people even consider it as many other languages already had
similar functionality.




> I came here to discuss the idea using pen and paper before putting any finger on a keyboard.
> But i was wrong.

If you only type and want other do hard work then yes, you were wrong.
I to like float diffrent wild changes for C++ but I do not expect
others to do this
work for me. And many times my ideas were plain wrong because I did not consider
some critical parts of C++.
You need to be humble enough to consider that your idea could be
fundamentally flawed too.