OSDev.org

CompDever wrote:

How often do you use std::string? std::iterator? std::vector?

i don't think i have used those. I use other means of accomplishing a goal that is more portable such as char*.

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. (Not to be mean to you; this is true for most programmers.)

The STL is your friend.

@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*)?

@candy: Apparently i made an abbreviational assumption

i am now unofficially closing this thread (there is no more relevant data to be discussed in this thread, anything that would be discussed in here would be highly off-topic. If somebody would like to discuss other things, there is a button that creates a new thread)

Thread Closed.

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*)?

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?"

If you are working on your own project (esp. on your own nickel), code in any format you choose. Party on! But if you have a manager and that manager has a boss, it's highly likely there is a coding standard published. Heaven help you if it's your code that's up for review and your boss throws you an evil eye. One might code their own pet projects a certain way, but the employer sets the OPTEMPO for the work place.

My $0.02. Note that I'm not out to sharpen knives and get into a conflict here. For the sake of the innocent lurker, I figure it's wise to point out the "real world" ways of things.

CompDever wrote:i needed help on my first mixed language operating system

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.)
And before you say anything, yes I know you meant pure assembly.

Since i had no reason to suspect the linker call as my source of error (since i *thought* i had copied his)

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.

Wise old man wrote:Assumption is the mother of all f**kups

but i was talking about it in the sense of something executed by an operating system

Why should I assume you are taking executable to mean "a subset of all executable programs"?

They don't vary from compiler just between compilers like M$ and Linux, and even linux varies also!

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).

since you were being overly persnickety

I think you'll find it's "pernickety".

Thread Closed.

JamesM

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 ])

"non-script, like perl"? you mean not-generally-compiled?

learnt and learned, emphasis added:

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.

is it just me or does everything you say seem to dig a deeper hole for you in this thread?