What's Wrong with this Code: The Answer

Buggin My Life Away What s Wrong with this Code The Answer | low cost car insurance

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:02:08 GMT

PingBack from http://lowcostcarinsurances.info/story.php?id=7487

Buggin My Life Away What s Wrong with this Code The Answer | garden statues

Buggin My Life Away What s Wrong with this Code The Answer | garden statues — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:34:03 GMT

PingBack from http://gardenstatuesgalore.info/story.php?id=1647

re: What's Wrong with this Code: The Answer

Paul — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:04:20 GMT

"Imagine some code that began its life as Java. Later, it got ported to C++." You've lost me already.

re: What's Wrong with this Code: The Answer

NIck — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:14:29 GMT

Thank you for your response. I was under the impression that there were no side effects in Haskell.

re: What's Wrong with this Code: The Answer

Rick Schaut — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:50:35 GMT

Nick,

First, functional languages attempt to reduce side-effects, but side-effects are not a product of the programming language we choose. Side-effects occur because programs have state. Whenver you have state, you're going to have side-effects.

Second, the language designers still have some performance issues to work out before we can rely on functional programming for a large quantity of the work we do in shipping products.

Having said that, I recall Don Box saying that lambda calculus is one of the things beeing added to C#. There are some interesting developments coming down the pike. We're just not quite there yet.

re: What's Wrong with this Code: The Answer

Nick — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:06:14 GMT

Please forgive my ignorance, but aren't there no side-effects in a functional language like Haskell? If so, wouldn't it be better for everyone to move to Haskell instead of C?

Just wanted to hear your thoughts on that.

re: What's Wrong with this Code: The Answer

Steven Fisher — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:26:13 GMT

Oh wow. Thanks for posting this. I didn't realize the significance of this point before. I'm used to dealing with this kind of stuff in Pascal and other less-standardized languages, but it never occurred to me that it might happen in C++.

re: What's Wrong with this Code: The Answer

Eric Albert — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 06:33:05 GMT

Hey, it is. And I read it there the first time. Sorry about that. :)

re: What's Wrong with this Code: The Answer

Rick Schaut — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:53:11 GMT

Eric,

You're right. I have, in the past, left Apple out. But, not this time :-). It's there.

re: What's Wrong with this Code: The Answer

Eric Albert — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:46:28 GMT

You often posts like this one which list Adobe and Microsoft as examples of companies with large blocks of code that have evolved over time and are likely to trip over fun bugs when switching compilers for the Intel transition. There's another interesting company of that size, though, which had to go through something similar for the Intel transition -- Apple itself.

In a number of cases like this one where the standard specifies that a particular bit of code is undefined, GCC does different things on PowerPC and Intel. I fixed lots of problems like this one in the years before last June. Of course, we had a bit more time to do it....