Fucking autocompletion of group names.

Am 12.03.2026 um 07:24 schrieb Bonita Montero:

There was a programming-"contest" on comp.lang.c and I wanted to show
the simpler code in C, here it is:

#include <iostream>
#include <sstream>
#include <iomanip>
#include <optional>
#include <algorithm>

using namespace std;

static optional<size_t> parse( const char *str );

int main( int argc, char **argv )
{
ÿÿÿÿif( argc < 3 )
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ return EXIT_FAILURE;
ÿÿÿÿoptional<size_t>
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ pRows = parse( argv[1] ),
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ pCols = parse( argv[2] );
ÿÿÿÿif( !pRows || !pCols )
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ return EXIT_FAILURE;
ÿÿÿÿsize_t rows = *pRows, cols = *pCols;
ÿÿÿÿoptional<size_t> pClip( rows * cols );
ÿÿÿÿif( argc >= 4 && !(pClip = parse( argv[3] )) )
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ return EXIT_FAILURE;
ÿÿÿÿsize_t clip = min( *pClip, rows * cols );
ÿÿÿÿstreamsize width = (ostringstream() << clip).str().length();
ÿÿÿÿfor( size_t row = 1; row <= min( rows, clip ); ++row )
ÿÿÿÿ{
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ bool head = true;
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ for( size_t value = row; value <= clip; value += rows, head =
false )
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ cout << " "sv.substr( head, !head ) << right <<
setw( width ) << value;
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ cout << endl;
ÿÿÿÿ}
}

static optional<size_t> parse( const char *str )
{
ÿÿÿÿistringstream iss( str );
ÿÿÿÿsize_t ret;
ÿÿÿÿiss >> ret;
ÿÿÿÿif( !iss || !iss.eof() )
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ return nullopt;
ÿÿÿÿreturn ret;
}

C++ really rocks since you've to deal with much less details than in C.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Am 12.03.2026 um 09:32 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:

Concerning your subject; it wouldn't appear to me to use the term
"beauty" in context of C++. C++ inherited so much ugly syntax and
concepts (from "C") and it added yet more syntactic infelicities.
(And I'm saying that as someone who liked to program in C++, also professionally, for many many years.)

My perception of beauty is just as subjective as your perception of the
ugly aspects of C++. I like the span of lowleven means in C++ that are inherited from C to higher level abstractions C++ has inherited from
other more moderrn language.
And if you don't the subjektive part of beauty or ugly parts of this
language C++ is several times more effective than C, i.e. you need
only a fraction of the code size while mostly maintaining the same
performance.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 12.03.26 11:36, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 12.03.2026 um 09:32 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:

Concerning your subject; it wouldn't appear to me to use the term
"beauty" in context of C++. C++ inherited so much ugly syntax and
concepts (from "C") and it added yet more syntactic infelicities.
(And I'm saying that as someone who liked to program in C++, also
professionally, for many many years.)

My perception of beauty is just as subjective as your perception of the
ugly aspects of C++. I like the span of lowleven means in C++ that are inherited from C to higher level abstractions C++ has inherited from
other more moderrn language.

Or even from older languages, like classes and inheritance from Simula, type-safety (string type checking) as provided by many older langauges, functional principles (cf. STL) from functional languages, and whatnot.

And if you don't the subjektive part of beauty or ugly parts of this
language C++ is several times more effective than C, i.e. you need
only a fraction of the code size while mostly maintaining the same performance.

Yes, I have agreed on that part, what you functionally get with C++.

Concerning the terms beauty and ugliness being subjective is obvious.

I was particularly speaking about syntax. - If you happen to know a
sufficient set of (modern or historic) languages - and I have no
reason to believe you haven't - you can observe that there are many
languages that are _a lot_ clearer designed than C++, and much safer
to use. Languages where the time span from design to a running system
is much shorter than in a language where it's easy to make subtle or
blatant errors.

You mentioned an IMO noteworthy specific aspect of C++; you seem to
like the low-to-high-level option. - Myself I also like both levels
to program in, depending on the application area. - But I consider
it a problem if the syntax and semantics of the inherited low-level
language taints the abstract concepts of a language. Personally I'd
prefer here a readable and powerful high level language with an
*interface* to connect arbitrary code from low-level languages. IMO
there's no need to do all levels in one language. And there are also
existing paragons that support that language design principle.

Janis


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)