More portable? It's just more unsafe. If you're using C++, and have the STL available, by all means use the STL! It's better than anything you're bound to whip up in a split second.CompDever wrote:i don't think i have used those. I use other means of accomplishing a goal that is more portable such as char*.How often do you use std::string? std::iterator? std::vector?
(Not to be mean to you; this is true for most programmers.)
CompDever: While everyone is crowing about how much code they write, your statement made me think a moment. Yes, there truly is a need to use them (the STL, et. al). If you work with a group of programmers in a code shop in the real world, 99% of the time there is a standard way of coding and documenting (internal and external docs) for the team members to follow. This allows for any one person to look at another's code and work on it without wondering, "why did Joe do it this way?"CompDever wrote:@Alboin: Some might prefer that, but why use those? I like char* and those things, even if there is another way... as long as my way accomplishes it; Is there truly a need to use them (as long as what i do is *safe*)?
And what do you think I wrote my first OS in? Perl?! I wrote it mixed C and asm (following the same tutorial you are currently stuck on. And I didn't post questions like "Can someone please send me code to get into vga mode and set pixel colours". Thats not a question, its just attempted theft.)CompDever wrote:i needed help on my first mixed language operating system
Wow, thats some top-notch debugging assumption right there. I'd love to see how you do in a work-related coding environment when you don't even check your assumptions.Since i had no reason to suspect the linker call as my source of error (since i *thought* i had copied his)
Wise old man wrote:Assumption is the mother of all f**kups
Why should I assume you are taking executable to mean "a subset of all executable programs"?but i was talking about it in the sense of something executed by an operating system
As has been pointed out, i said the standard library varies from system to system. Between windows and linux, these systems also have different compilers. That is irrelavent. There are also different standard libraries on linux that compile on the same compiler (gcc).They don't vary from compiler just between compilers like M$ and Linux, and even linux varies also!
I think you'll find it's "pernickety".since you were being overly persnickety
JamesMThread Closed.
"non-script, like perl"? you mean not-generally-compiled?CompDever wrote:@pcmattman: while we are on the subject of programming, all the non-script (like perl) programming i've done amounts to ~ 120 projects, most of them approximately at the production level of completion. (and by the way learn in past tense is learned not learnt [unless that was an internet slang of the sort that i have not seen])
is it just me or does everything you say seem to dig a deeper hole for you in this thread?http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutspelling/learnt wrote:These are alternative forms of the past tense and past participle of the verb learn. Learnt is more common in British English, and learned in American English. There are a number of verbs of this type (burn, dream, kneel, lean, leap, spell, spill, spoil etc.). They are all irregular verbs, and this is a part of their irregularity.
