Search Results

Search found 645 results on 26 pages for 'stl'.

Page 23/26 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >

  • How can I switch off exception handling in MSVC?

    - by Tamara
    Does anybody know how to switch off exception handling option in MSVC? I tried to set the option 'Enable C++ exceptions' to 'NO' and I got warning: warning C4530: C++ exception handler used, but unwind semantics are not enabled. Specify /EHsc I would like to switch off the exception handler, too, but I don't know how. In my application I basically need more speer than stability, therefore I chose switching off the exception handling. I do not have any try/catch blocks, but I do use STL. When I switch the option 'Enable C++ exceptions' to 'NO' is there any way how to get rid of those warnings?

    Read the article

  • Reducing template bloat with inheritance

    - by benoitj
    Does anyone have experience reducing template code bloat using inheritance? i hesitate rewriting our containers this way: class vectorBase { public: int size(); void clear(); int m_size; void *m_rawData; //.... }; template< typename T > class vector : public vectorBase { void push_back( const T& ); //... }; I should keep maximum performance while reducing compile time I'm also wondering why stl implementations do not uses this approach Thanks for your feedbacks

    Read the article

  • allocator with no template

    - by Merni
    Every stl container take an allocator as a second object, template < class T, class Allocator = allocator<T> > class vector; If you write your own class It is possible to use your own allocator. But is it possible to write your own allocator without using templates? For example, writing this function is not easy if you are not allowed to use templates pointer allocate(size_type n, const_pointer = 0) { void* p = std::malloc(n * sizeof(T)); if (!p) throw std::bad_alloc(); return static_cast<pointer>(p); } Because how could you know the size of T?

    Read the article

  • Simple C++ container class that is thread-safe for writing

    - by conradlee
    I am writing a multi-threaded program using OpenMP in C++. At one point my program forks into many threads, each of which need to add "jobs" to some container that keeps track of all added jobs. Each job can just be a pointer to some object. Basically, I just need the add pointers to some container from several threads at the same time. Is there a simple solution that performs well? After some googling, I found that STL containers are not thread-safe. Some stackoverflow threads address this question, but none that forms a consensus on a simple solution.

    Read the article

  • C++: Switching from MSVC to G++: Global Variables

    - by feed the fire
    I recently switched to Linux and wanted to compile my Visual Studio 2010 C++ source code, which uses only the STL, on G++. My Linux machine currently isn't available but I can try to tell you what is going on, first: As I try to compile my project, all global variables I use in main and which perfectly work on MSVC result in myGlobalVar is not defined in this scope errors. My project is built nearly the same as the example below: // myclass.h class myClass { // .... }; extern myClass globalInstance; // myclass.cpp #include "myclass.h" // myClass functions located here myClass globalInstance; // main.cpp #include "myclass.h" int main( ) { // Accessing globalInstance results in an error: Not defined in this scope } What am I doing wrong? Where are the differences between G++ and MSVC in terms of global variables?

    Read the article

  • Are C++ Templates just Macros in disguise?

    - by Roddy
    I've been programming in C++ for a few years, and I've used STL quite a bit and have created my own template classes a few times to see how it's done. Now I'm trying to integrate templates deeper into my OO design, and a nagging thought keeps coming back to me: They're just a macros, really... You could implement (rather UGLY) auto_ptrs using #defines, if you really wanted to. This way of thinking about templates helps me understand how my code will actually work, but I feel that I must be missing the point somehow. Macros are meant evil incarnate, yet "template metaprogramming" is all the rage. So, what ARE the real distinctions? and how can templates avoid the dangers that #define leads you into, like Inscrutable compiler errors in places where you don't expect them? Code bloat? Difficulty in tracing code? Setting Debugger Breakpoints?

    Read the article

  • How to get the next prefix in C++?

    - by Vicente Botet Escriba
    Given a sequence (for example a string "Xa"), I want to get the next prefix in order lexicographic (i.e "Xb"). As I don't want to reinvent the wheel, I'm wondering if there is any function in C++ STL or boost that can help to define this generic function easily? If not, do you think that this function can be useful? Notes The next of "aZ" should be "b". Even if the examples are strings, the function should work for any Sequence. The lexicographic order should be a template parameter of the function.

    Read the article

  • Need recommendation for object serialization library in c++

    - by michael
    Hi, I am looking for recommendation for object serialization/deserialization library in c++? Which one are the most advanced and open-sourced? Can it handle Any class that users defined? Object hierarchy (parent and child classes)? A Tree of objects? Class A has an attribute of Class B which has an attribute of Class C? STL containers? Class A has a vector of Class B? A cyclic of objects? Class A has a pointer pointing to B which has a pointer to A? I find boost serialization library. I am not sure what is its limitation from http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_42_0/libs/serialization/doc/tutorial.html

    Read the article

  • Referencing invalid memory locations with C++ Iterators

    - by themoondothshine
    I am a big fan of GCC, but recently I noticed a vague anomaly. Using __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator (ie, the most common iterator type used in libstdc++, the C++ STL) it is possible to refer to an arbitrary memory location and even change its value without causing an exception! Is this expected behavior? If so, isn't a security loophole? Here's an example: #include <iostream> using namespace std; int main() { basic_string<char> str("Hello world!"); basic_string<char>::iterator iter = str.end(); iter += str.capacity() + 99999; *iter = 'x'; cout << "Value: " << *iter << endl; }

    Read the article

  • [C++] Needed: A simple C++ container (stack, linked list) that is thread-safe for writing

    - by conradlee
    I am writing a multi-threaded program using OpenMP in C++. At one point my program forks into many threads, each of which need to add "jobs" to some container that keeps track of all added jobs. Each job can just be a pointer to some object. Basically, I just need the add pointers to some container from several threads at the same time. Is there a simple solution that performs well? After some googling, I found that STL containers are not thread-safe. Some stackoverflow threads address this question, but none form a consensus on a simple solution.

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to return something like a collection of `std::auto_ptr`s in C++03?

    - by Billy ONeal
    std::auto_ptr is not allowed to be stored in an STL container, such as std::vector. However, occasionally there are cases where I need to return a collection of polymorphic objects, and therefore I can't return a vector of objects (due to the slicing problem). I can use std::tr1::shared_ptr and stick those in the vector, but then I have to pay a high price of maintaining separate reference counts, and object that owns the actual memory (the container) no longer logically "owns" the objects because they can be copied out of it without regard to ownership. C++0x offers a perfect solution to this problem in the form of std::vector<std::unique_ptr<t>>, but I don't have access to C++0x. Some other notes: I don't have access to C++0x, but I do have TR1 available. I would like to avoid use of Boost (though it is available if there is no other option) I am aware of boost::ptr_container containers (i.e. boost::ptr_vector), but I would like to avoid this because it breaks the debugger (innards are stored in void *s which means it's difficult to view the object actually stored inside the container in the debugger)

    Read the article

  • c++ - FIFO implementation

    - by Narek
    While implementing a FIFO I have used the following structure: struct Node { T info_; Node* link_; Node(T info, Node* link=0): info_(info), link_(link) {} }; I think this a well known trick for lots of STL containers (for example for List). Is this a good practice? What it means for compiler when you say that Node has a member with a type of it's pointer? Is this a kind of infinite loop? And finally, if this is a bad practice, how I could implement a better FIFO.

    Read the article

  • Performance of Serialized Objects in C++

    - by jm1234567890
    Hi Everyone, I'm wondering if there is a fast way to dump an STL set to disk and then read it back later. The internal structure of a set is a binary tree, so if I serialize it naively, when I read it back the program will have to go though the process of inserting each element again. I think this is slow even if it is read back in correct order, correct me if I am wrong. Is there a way to "dump" the memory containing the set into disk and then read it back later? That is, keep everything in binary format, thus avoiding the re-insertion. Do the boost serialization tools do this? Thanks! EDIT: oh I should probably read, http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/serialization.html I will read it now... no it doesn't really help

    Read the article

  • python challenge, but for C++

    - by davidthepsycho
    Does anyone know any site or book that presents problems like python challenge, but for C++? When I think python challenge, I do not mean only a set of problems to be solved with C++ (for that I could probably use the same problems of python challenge), but rather problems that will probably be best solved using C++ STL, special features of the language, etc. For example, there is one python challenge that is specifically designed to teach you how to use pickle, a serializing library for python. Until now, I only know programming contests problems, but they could also be solved with C, java or other languages.

    Read the article

  • On which Windows versions and configurations does my C++ app run?

    - by saas
    I've built a C++ application using MSVC 2010, default compile settings (note: Using "Multithreaded" instead of "Multithreaded DLL" to avoid the Microsoft C++ runtime being needed). I used only the STL and a few, old functions from the Win32 API (Windows.h). Where will my app run? (98-7?) Can the be any differences on how my app works on different PCs? As said: It's only a simple console app. I'd be glad if you could add some additional information if you have it!

    Read the article

  • Assign RegEx submatches to variables or map (C++/C)

    - by Michael
    I need to extract the SAME type of information (e.g. First name, Last Name, Telephone, ...), from numerous different text sources (each with a different format & different order of the variables of interest). I want a function that does the extraction based on a regular expression and returns the result as DESCRIPTIVE variables. In other words, instead of returning each match result as submatch[0], submatch[1], submatch[2], ..., have it do EITHER of the following: 1.) return std::map so that the submatches can be accessed via: submatch["first_name"], submatch["last_name"], submatch["telephone"] 2.) return a variables with the submatches so that the submatches can be accessed via: submatch_first_name, submatch_last_name, submatch_telephone I can write a wrapper class around boost::regex to do #1, but I was hoping there would be a built-in or a more elegant way to do this in C++/Boost/STL/C.

    Read the article

  • Count function calls by name or signature. Gcc, C++

    - by MajesticRa
    I have some c++ written package. Linux, gcc. I can modify compilation process (change Makefile, flags, etc.), but can not change C++ source code. One runs the package with different parameters, it does a job and exits. How to count: 1) Number of calls of function with specific name? 2) Number of calls of functions with specific signature? 3) Number of calls of functions where one of the parameters is of specific type i.e. std::string (type is specified by signature)? 4) and extra Number of calls of functions of STL objects, i.e. std::string copy constructor? (I mean count a number of calls during the run. ) I thought to do it with GDB, but I found it very tough to do (1) and have not found how to do (2)-(4) at all. All acceptable answers I will write here for humanity.

    Read the article

  • Do I really need to return Type::size_type?

    - by dehmann
    I often have classes that are mostly just wrappers around some STL container, like this: class Foo { public: typedef std::vector<whatever> Vec; typedef Vec::size_type; const Vec& GetVec() { return vec_; } size_type size() { return vec_.size() } private: Vec vec_; }; I am not so sure about returning size_type. Often, some function will call size() and pass that value on to another function and that one will use it and maybe pass it on. Now everyone has to include that Foo header, although I'm really just passing some size value around, which should just be unsigned int anyway ...? What is the right thing to do here? Is it best practice to really use size_type everywhere?

    Read the article

  • C# Java Objective-C need expert advices

    - by Kevino
    Which platform as the edge today in 2012 with the rise of cloud computing, mobile development and the revolution of HTML5/Javascript between J2EE, .Net framework and IOS Objective-C ??? I want to start learning 1 language between Java, C# and Objective-C and get back into programming after 14 years and I don't know which to choose I need expert advices... I already know a little C++ and I remember my concepts in example pointers arithmetic, class etc so I tend to prefer learning C# and Objective-C but I've been told by some experienced programmers that Windows 8 could flop and .Net could be going away slowly since C++ and Html5/Javascript could be king in mobile is that true ? and that C# is more advanced compared to Java with Linq/Lambda... but not truly as portable if we consider android, etc but Java as a lot going for him too Scala, Clojure, Groovy, JRuby, JPython etc etc so I am lost Please help me, and don't close this right away I really need help and expert advices thanks you very much ANSWER : ElYusubov : thanks for everything please continue with the answers/explanations I just did some native C++ in dos mode in 1998 before Cli and .Net I don't know the STL,Templates, Win32 or COM but I remember a little the concept of memory management and oop etc I already played around a little with C# 1.0 in 2002 but things changed a lot with linq and lambda... I am here because I talked with some experienced programmers and authors of some the best selling programming books like apress wrox and deitel and they told me a few things are likely to happen like .Net could be on his way out because of Html5/Javascript combo could kill xaml and C++ native apps on mobile dev will outperform them by a lot... Secondly ios and android are getting so popular that mobile dev is the future so Objective-C is very hard to ignore so why get tied down in Windows long term (.Net) compared to Java (android)... but again android is very fragmented, they also said Windows 8 RT will give you access to only a small part of the .Net framework... so that's what they think so I don't know which direction to choose I wanted to learn C# & .Net but what if it die off or Windows 8 flop Windows Phone marketshare really can't compare to ios... so I'll be stuck that's why I worry is Java safer long term or more versatile if you want 'cause of the support for android ??

    Read the article

  • Stagnating in programming

    - by Coder
    Time after time this question came up in my mind, but up until today I wasn't thinking about it much. I have been programming for maybe around 8 years now, and for the last two years it seems I'm not as keen to pick up new technologies anymore. Maybe that's a burnout or something, but I'd say it's experience and what I like, that's stopping me from running after the latest and greatest. I'm C++ developer, by this I mean, I love close to metal programming. I have no problems tracing problems through assembly, using tools like WinDbg or HexView. When I use constructs, I think about how they are realized underneath, how the bits are set and unset under the hood. I love battling with complex threading problems and doing everything hardcore way, even by hand if the regular solutions seem half baked. But I also love the C++0x stuff, and use it a lot. And all C++ code as long as it's not cumbersome compared to C counterparts, sometimes I also fall back to sort of "Super C" if the C++ way is ugly. And then there are all other developers who seem to be way more forward looking, .Net 4.0 MVC, WPF, all those Microsoft X#s, LINQ languages, XML and XSLT, mobile devices and so on. I have done a considerable amount of .NET, SQL, ASPX programming, but the further I go, the less I want to try those technologies. Is that bad? Almost every day I hear people saying that managed code is the only way forward, WPF is the way to go. I hear that C++ is godawful, and you can't code anything in it that's somewhat stable. But I don't buy it. With the experience I have, and the knowledge of how native code is compiled and executes, I can say I find it extremely rare that C++ code is unstable, or leaks, or causes crashes that takes more than 30 seconds to identify and fix. And to tell the truth, I've seen enough problems with other "cool" languages that I'd say C++ is even more stable and production proof than the safe languages, at least for me. The only thing that scares me in C++ is new frameworks, I don't trust them, and I use them extra sparingly. STL - yes, ATL - very sparingly, everything else... Well, not very keen on it. Most huge problems I've ran into, all were related to frameworks, not the language itself. Some overrided operator here, bad hierarchy there, poor class design here, mystical castings there. Other than that, C/C++ (yes, I use them together) still seems a very controlled and stable way to develop applications. Am I stagnating? Should I switch a profession, or force myself in all that marketing hype? Are there more developers who feel the same way?

    Read the article

  • Are there deprecated practices for multithread and multiprocessor programming that I should no longer use?

    - by DeveloperDon
    In the early days of FORTRAN and BASIC, essentially all programs were written with GOTO statements. The result was spaghetti code and the solution was structured programming. Similarly, pointers can have difficult to control characteristics in our programs. C++ started with plenty of pointers, but use of references are recommended. Libraries like STL can reduce some of our dependency. There are also idioms to create smart pointers that have better characteristics, and some version of C++ permit references and managed code. Programming practices like inheritance and polymorphism use a lot of pointers behind the scenes (just as for, while, do structured programming generates code filled with branch instructions). Languages like Java eliminate pointers and use garbage collection to manage dynamically allocated data instead of depending on programmers to match all their new and delete statements. In my reading, I have seen examples of multi-process and multi-thread programming that don't seem to use semaphores. Do they use the same thing with different names or do they have new ways of structuring protection of resources from concurrent use? For example, a specific example of a system for multithread programming with multicore processors is OpenMP. It represents a critical region as follows, without the use of semaphores, which seem not to be included in the environment. th_id = omp_get_thread_num(); #pragma omp critical { cout << "Hello World from thread " << th_id << '\n'; } This example is an excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenMP Alternatively, similar protection of threads from each other using semaphores with functions wait() and signal() might look like this: wait(sem); th_id = get_thread_num(); cout << "Hello World from thread " << th_id << '\n'; signal(sem); In this example, things are pretty simple, and just a simple review is enough to show the wait() and signal() calls are matched and even with a lot of concurrency, thread safety is provided. But other algorithms are more complicated and use multiple semaphores (both binary and counting) spread across multiple functions with complex conditions that can be called by many threads. The consequences of creating deadlock or failing to make things thread safe can be hard to manage. Do these systems like OpenMP eliminate the problems with semaphores? Do they move the problem somewhere else? How do I transform my favorite semaphore using algorithm to not use semaphores anymore?

    Read the article

  • C++ Accelerated Massive Parallelism

    - by Daniel Moth
    At AMD's Fusion conference Herb Sutter announced in his keynote session a technology that our team has been working on that we call C++ Accelerated Massive Parallelism (C++ AMP) and during the keynote I showed a brief demo of an app built with our technology. After the keynote, I go deeper into the technology in my breakout session. If you read both those abstracts, you'll get some information about what C++ AMP is, without being too explicit since we published the abstracts before the technology was announced. You can find the official online announcement at Soma's blog post. Here, I just wanted to capture the key points about C++ AMP that can serve as an introduction and an FAQ. So, in no particular order… C++ AMP lowers the barrier to entry for heterogeneous hardware programmability and brings performance to the mainstream, without sacrificing developer productivity or solution portability. is designed not only to help you address today's massively parallel hardware (i.e. GPUs and APUs), but it also future proofs your code investments with a forward looking design. is part of Visual C++. You don't need to use a different compiler or learn different syntax. is modern C++. Not C or some other derivative. is integrated and supported fully in Visual Studio vNext. Editing, building, debugging, profiling and all the other goodness of Visual Studio work well with C++ AMP. provides an STL-like library as part of the existing concurrency namespace and delivered in the new amp.h header file. makes it extremely easy to work with large multi-dimensional data on heterogeneous hardware; in a manner that exposes parallelization. introduces only one core C++ language extension. builds on DirectX (and DirectCompute in particular) which offers a great hardware abstraction layer that is ubiquitous and reliable. The architecture is such, that this point can be thought of as an implementation detail that does not surface to the API layer. Stay tuned on my blog for more over the coming months where I will switch from just talking about C++ AMP to showing you how to use the API with code examples… Comments about this post welcome at the original blog.

    Read the article

  • Why would I learn C++11, having known C and C++?

    - by Shahbaz
    I am a programmer in C and C++, although I don't stick to either language and write a mixture of the two. Sometimes having code in classes, possibly with operator overloading, or templates and the oh so great STL is obviously a better way. Sometimes use of a simple C function pointer is much much more readable and clear. So I find beauty and practicality in both languages. I don't want to get into the discussion of "If you mix them and compile with a C++ compiler, it's not a mix anymore, it's all C++" I think we all understand what I mean by mixing them. Also, I don't want to talk about C vs C++, this question is all about C++11. C++11 introduces what I think are significant changes to how C++ works, but it has introduced many special cases that change how different features behave in different circumstances, placing restrictions on multiple inheritance, adding lambda functions, etc. I know that at some point in the future, when you say C++ everyone would assume C++11. Much like when you say C nowadays, you most probably mean C99. That makes me consider learning C++11. After all, if I want to continue writing code in C++, I may at some point need to start using those features simply because my colleagues have. Take C for example. After so many years, there are still many people learning and writing code in C. Why? Because the language is good. What good means is that, it follows many of the rules to create a good programming language. So besides being powerful (which easy or hard, almost all programming languages are), C is regular and has few exceptions, if any. C++11 however, I don't think so. I'm not sure that the changes introduced in C++11 are making the language better. So the question is: Why would I learn C++11? Update: My original question in short was: "I like C++, but the new C++11 doesn't look good because of this and this and this. However, deep down something tells me I need to learn it. So, I asked this question here so that someone would help convince me to learn it." However, the zealous people here can't tolerate pointing out a flaw in their language and were not at all constructive in this manner. After the moderator edited the question, it became more like a "So, how about this new C++11?" which was not at all my question. Therefore, in a day or too I am going to delete this question if no one comes up with an actual convincing argument. P.S. If you are interested in knowing what flaws I was talking about, you can edit my question and see the previous edits.

    Read the article

  • C#: A "Dumbed-Down" C++?

    - by James Michael Hare
    I was spending a lovely day this last weekend watching my sons play outside in one of the better weekends we've had here in Saint Louis for quite some time, and whilst watching them and making sure no limbs were broken or eyes poked out with sticks and other various potential injuries, I was perusing (in the correct sense of the word) this month's MSDN magazine to get a sense of the latest VS2010 features in both IDE and in languages. When I got to the back pages, I saw a wonderful article by David S. Platt entitled, "In Praise of Dumbing Down"  (msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/ee336129.aspx).  The title captivated me and I read it and found myself agreeing with it completely especially as it related to my first post on divorcing C++ as my favorite language. Unfortunately, as Mr. Platt mentions, the term dumbing-down has negative connotations, but is really and truly a good thing.  You are, in essence, taking something that is extremely complex and reducing it to something that is much easier to use and far less error prone.  Adding safeties to power tools and anti-kick mechanisms to chainsaws are in some sense "dumbing them down" to the common user -- but that also makes them safer and more accessible for the common user.  This was exactly my point with C++ and C#.  I did not mean to infer that C++ was not a useful or good language, but that in a very high percentage of cases, is too complex and error prone for the job at hand. Choosing the correct programming language for a job is a lot like choosing any other tool for a task.  For example: if I want to dig a French drain in my lawn, I can attempt to use a huge tractor-like backhoe and the job would be done far quicker than if I would dig it by hand.  I can't deny that the backhoe has the raw power and speed to perform.  But you also cannot deny that my chances of injury or chances of severing utility lines or other resources climb at an exponential rate inverse to the amount of training I may have on that machinery. Is C++ a powerful tool?  Oh yes, and it's great for those tasks where speed and performance are paramount.  But for most of us, it's the wrong tool.  And keep in mind, I say this even though I have 17 years of experience in using it and feel myself highly adept in utilizing its features both in the standard libraries, the STL, and in supplemental libraries such as BOOST.  Which, although greatly help with adding powerful features quickly, do very little to curb the relative dangers of the language. So, you may say, the fault is in the developer, that if the developer had some higher skills or if we only hired C++ experts this would not be an issue.  Now, I will concede there is some truth to this.  Obviously, the higher skilled C++ developers you hire the better the chance they will produce highly performant and error-free code.  However, what good is that to the average developer who cannot afford a full stable of C++ experts? That's my point with C#:  It's like a kinder, gentler C++.  It gives you nearly the same speed, and in many ways even more power than C++, and it gives you a much softer cushion for novices to fall against if they code less-than-optimally.  A bug is a bug, of course, in any language, but C# does a good job of hiding and taking on the task of handling almost all of the resource issues that make C++ so tricky.  For my money, C# is much more maintainable, more feature-rich, second only slightly in performance, faster to market, and -- last but not least -- safer and easier to use.  That's why, where I work, I much prefer to see the developers moving to C#.  The quantity of bugs is much lower, and we don't need to hire "experts" to achieve the same results since the language itself handles those resource pitfalls so prevalent in poorly written C++ code.  C++ will still have its place in the world, and I'm sure I'll still use it now and again where it is truly the correct tool for the job, but for nearly every other project C# is a wonderfully "dumbed-down" version of C++ -- in the very best sense -- and to me, that's the smart choice.

    Read the article

  • what differs a computer scientist/software engineer to regular people who learn programming language and APIs?

    - by Amumu
    In University, we learn and reinvent the wheel a lot to truly learn the programming concepts. For example, we may learn assembly language to understand, what happens inside the box, and how the system operates, when we execute our code. This helps understanding higher level concepts deeper. For example, memory management like in C is just an abstraction of manually managed memory contents and addresses. The problem is, when we're going to work, usually productivity is required more. I could program my own containers, or string class, or date/time (using POSIX with C system call) to do the job, but then, it would take much longer time to use existing STL or Boost library, which abstract all of those thing and very easy to use. This leads to an issue, that a regular person doesn't need to get through all the low level/under the hood stuffs, who learns only one programming language and using language-related APIs. These people may eventually compete with the mainstream graduates from computer science or software engineer and call themselves programmers. At first, I don't think it's valid to call them programmers. I used to think, a real programmer needs to understand the computer deeply (but not at the electronic level). But then I changed my mind. After all, they get the job done and satisfy all the test criteria (logic, performance, security...), and in business environment, who cares if you're an expert and understand how computer works or not. You may get behind the "amateurs" if you spend to much time learning about how things work inside. It is totally valid for those people to call themselves programmers. This makes me confuse. So, after all, programming should be considered an universal skill? Does programming language and concepts matter or the problems we solve matter? For example, many C/C++ vs Java and other high level language, one of the main reason is because C/C++ features performance, as well as accessing low level facility. One of the main reason (in my opinion), is coding in C/C++ seems complex, so people feel good about it (not trolling anyone, just my observation, and my experience as well. Try to google "C hacker syndrome"). While Java on the other hand, made for simplifying programming tasks to help developers concentrate on solving their problems. Based on Java rationale, if the programing language keeps evolve, one day everyone can map their logic directly with natural language. Everyone can program. On that day, maybe real programmers are mathematicians, who could perform most complex logic (including business logic and academic logic) without worrying about installing/configuring compiler, IDEs? What's our job as a computer scientist/software engineer? To solve computer specific problems or to solve problems in general? For example, take a look at this exame: http://cm.baylor.edu/ICPCWiki/attach/Problem%20Resources/2010WorldFinalProblemSet.pdf . The example requires only basic knowledge about the programming language, but focus more on problem solving with the language. In sum, what differs a computer scientist/software engineer to regular people who learn programming language and APIs? A mathematician can be considered a programmer, if he is good enough to use programming language to implement his formula. Can we programmer do this? Probably not for most of us, since we specialize about computer, not math. An electronic engineer, who learns how to use C to program for his devices, can be considered a programmer. If the programming languages keep being simplified, may one day the software engineers, who implements business logic and create softwares, be obsolete? (Not for computer scientist though, since many of the CS topics are scientific, and science won't change, but technology will).

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >