Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.

Anybody there? ;^D

On 2023-12-05, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.
>
> Anybody there? ;^D

I'm here ... just that your questions / discussions of late have sailed
clear over my head :|

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes:
>On 2023-12-05, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.
>>
>> Anybody there? ;^D
>
>I'm here ... just that your questions / discussions of late have sailed
>clear over my head :|

I'm here. Too busy at the momement to think about fancy synchronization topics.

On 12/5/2023 1:38 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:
> On 2023-12-05, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.
>>
>> Anybody there? ;^D
>
> I'm here ... just that your questions / discussions of late have sailed
> clear over my head :|

The atomics and memory barriers? For some damn reason, I thought that
Bonita would flame me up pretty good just for modeling my experiment in
Relacy first. lol. Afaict, she seems to dislike any type of race
detector... ;^)

Btw, have you taken a look at my highly experimental xchg work system?
Right now its implemented within the realm of a Relacy test unit.
However, I am going to port it into actual pure C++11 for all of us to
be able to play around with.

I personally want to use it for some of my CPU based vector field
plotting logic. I am pondering on how I might distribute the workload
across a system using my experimental xchg based work system.

So, when I get the time to port, might be tonight or sometime tomorrow,
can you do be a favor and try to compile and run it? Tell me all about
the output you get. I am mainly interesting in the local work vs foreign
work the system does during a test run...

Fwiw, here is one of my vector fields I have in mind:

https://youtu.be/YsAkm0VlCsw

On 12/5/2023 1:55 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 12/5/2023 1:38 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> On 2023-12-05, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.
>>>
>>> Anybody there? ;^D
>>
>> I'm here ... just that your questions / discussions of late have sailed
>> clear over my head :|
>
> The atomics and memory barriers? For some damn reason, I thought that
> Bonita would flame me up pretty good just for modeling my experiment in
> Relacy first. lol. Afaict, she seems to dislike any type of race
> detector... ;^)
>
> Btw, have you taken a look at my highly experimental xchg work system?
> Right now its implemented within the realm of a Relacy test unit.
> However, I am going to port it into actual pure C++11 for all of us to
> be able to play around with.
>
> I personally want to use it for some of my CPU based vector field
> plotting logic. I am pondering on how I might distribute the workload
> across a system using my experimental xchg based work system.
>
> So, when I get the time to port, might be tonight or sometime tomorrow,
> can you do be a favor and try to compile and run it? Tell me all about
> the output you get. I am mainly interesting in the local work vs foreign
> work the system does during a test run...
>
> Fwiw, here is one of my vector fields I have in mind:
>
> https://youtu.be/YsAkm0VlCsw

Some music to go with the animation:

https://youtu.be/wgBgwd0ekIk?t=178

;^D

On 2023-12-05 at 22:22, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.
>
> Anybody there? ;^D

We are still here, but seeing almost endless threads with Bonita doesn't
inspire me to respond to those subjects.

On 2023-12-05, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 12/5/2023 1:38 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> On 2023-12-05, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.
>>>
>>> Anybody there? ;^D
>>
>> I'm here ... just that your questions / discussions of late have sailed
>> clear over my head :|
>
> The atomics and memory barriers? For some damn reason, I thought that
> Bonita would flame me up pretty good just for modeling my experiment in
> Relacy first. lol. Afaict, she seems to dislike any type of race
> detector... ;^)

Well, most of the last couple of weeks worth of topics (not that I
really have a good handle on cpp in the first place :) ... )

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On 12/5/2023 2:24 PM, Bo Persson wrote:
> On 2023-12-05 at 22:22, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.
>>
>> Anybody there? ;^D
>
> We are still here, but seeing almost endless threads with Bonita doesn't
> inspire me to respond to those subjects.
>
>

Touche! Although, ivvho, some fairly interesting discussions can spark
from some of those subjects...

On 06/12/2023 00:24, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 12/5/2023 2:24 PM, Bo Persson wrote:
>> On 2023-12-05 at 22:22, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.
>>>
>>> Anybody there? ;^D
>>
>> We are still here, but seeing almost endless threads with Bonita
>> doesn't inspire me to respond to those subjects.
>>
>>
>
> Touche! Although, ivvho, some fairly interesting discussions can spark
> from some of those subjects...

Agreed - there have been a few interesting topics, and they can be
inspired by many things. (Or at least interesting to some people - not
everyone is interested in the same things.)

But these ridiculous pantomime arguments between you and Bonita put
people off, and I for one end up simply marking the threads as "ignored"
sometimes.

I suggest you have two rules here (you and Bonita) :

1. It's okay to post a reply to your own post, adding new information or
a correction. But don't reply to that second post yourself - if no one
else has posted in the thread, it's not interesting enough for the
group. If /you/ think it is particularly interesting, put it on a blog
or github, and post a link and summary of the information or code.

2. Take a hint from the chess world. If the posting order in a thread
branch is A, B, A, B, A, B, then it's a draw, and you should both drop
that branch to stop boring everyone else.

Am 05.12.2023 um 22:55 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:

> The atomics and memory barriers? For some damn reason, I thought that
> Bonita would flame me up pretty good just for modeling my experiment
> in Relacy first. lol. Afaict, she seems to dislike any type of race
> detector... ;^)

You's apply Relacy to a hello world.

On 05/12/2023 21:55, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> I'm here. Too busy at the momement to think about fancy synchronization topics.

I'm in the reverse position. I retired last year, and have been
considering saying goodbye to you all. I don't seem to have the time for
all those little personal C++ projects I shelved for my retirement!

Andy

On 12/5/2023 11:50 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 06/12/2023 00:24, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 12/5/2023 2:24 PM, Bo Persson wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-05 at 22:22, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.
>>>>
>>>> Anybody there? ;^D
>>>
>>> We are still here, but seeing almost endless threads with Bonita
>>> doesn't inspire me to respond to those subjects.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Touche! Although, ivvho, some fairly interesting discussions can spark
>> from some of those subjects...
>
> Agreed - there have been a few interesting topics, and they can be
> inspired by many things.  (Or at least interesting to some people - not
> everyone is interested in the same things.)

So good so far...

> But these ridiculous pantomime arguments between you and Bonita put
> people off, and I for one end up simply marking the threads as "ignored"
> sometimes.

Well, not so good...

> I suggest you have two rules here (you and Bonita) :
>
> 1. It's okay to post a reply to your own post, adding new information or
> a correction.  But don't reply to that second post yourself - if no one
> else has posted in the thread, it's not interesting enough for the
> group.  If /you/ think it is particularly interesting, put it on a blog
> or github, and post a link and summary of the information or code.

Offload everything into a brief description and a single link to the
content, and let it be wrt the group. I think my experimental "work
system" is interesting because it only uses atomic exchange. No CAS,
XADD, ect... Also, its in pure C++11.

> 2. Take a hint from the chess world.  If the posting order in a thread
> branch is A, B, A, B, A, B, then it's a draw, and you should both drop
> that branch to stop boring everyone else.

For some reason this makes me think of both players moving their queens
back and forth, forevermore. The game goes nowhere...

On 2023-12-05, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.

I think that most long-time users of C++ are put off by all the crap
that has gone into making it even more insanely bloated.

And that's nearly the only kind of user you're going to get
in a Usenet comp.* newsgroup.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted.

On 12/5/2023 3:22 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.
>
> Anybody there? ;^D

Yup.

Lynn

On 12/6/2023 2:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2023-12-05, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.
>
> I think that most long-time users of C++ are put off by all the crap
> that has gone into making it even more insanely bloated.
>
> And that's nearly the only kind of user you're going to get
> in a Usenet comp.* newsgroup.
>

Well, I hope my activity here (partially wrt my "hyperactive"
interactions with Bonita) did not chase people away to a point where
they say, C++ can flush itself down a toilet filled with all sorts of crap!

Fwiw, I am working on porting my xchg work system experiment from Relacy
to pure C++11. I think it should be, on topic? Right? Or perhaps, should
I offload it to my website and/or comp.programming.threads?

On 06/12/2023 21:44, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 12/5/2023 11:50 PM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 06/12/2023 00:24, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 12/5/2023 2:24 PM, Bo Persson wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-05 at 22:22, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>
>> I suggest you have two rules here (you and Bonita) :
>>
>> 1. It's okay to post a reply to your own post, adding new information
>> or a correction.  But don't reply to that second post yourself - if no
>> one else has posted in the thread, it's not interesting enough for the
>> group.  If /you/ think it is particularly interesting, put it on a
>> blog or github, and post a link and summary of the information or code.
>
> Offload everything into a brief description and a single link to the
> content, and let it be wrt the group. I think my experimental "work
> system" is interesting because it only uses atomic exchange. No CAS,
> XADD, ect... Also, its in pure C++11.

I agree that there is a lot of interesting stuff buried there somewhere.
But I don't think posting in a public group is the best way when it's
still just ideas going around in your head. You need something a bit
more concrete - either something new to show people, or questions to
ask, in order to capture interest. "I'm thinking about this... or
that... or maybe this..." doesn't make as good a thread.

On the other side, big lumps of code are also not so good in threads as
they are too much - I believe (and I'm extrapolating a lot here from
myself, so I could be wildly wrong) that posts that are too big will
simply be glossed over. Posting a link to a separate page/project/blog
and adding a summary in the post will make it easier for those
interested to study the matter when they have time. Discussion posts
are viewed as too fleeting for that.

But don't stop posting, whatever you do!

>
>
>> 2. Take a hint from the chess world.  If the posting order in a thread
>> branch is A, B, A, B, A, B, then it's a draw, and you should both drop
>> that branch to stop boring everyone else.
>
> For some reason this makes me think of both players moving their queens
> back and forth, forevermore. The game goes nowhere...

That's exactly the image I was going for!

On 2023-12-07, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 06/12/2023 23:42, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2023-12-05, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.
>>
>> I think that most long-time users of C++ are put off by all the crap
>> that has gone into making it even more insanely bloated.
>>
>
> How does this "crap" affect your coding? Maybe, for example, you don't
> like fold expressions and parameter packs from newer C++ standards. If
> you don't use them, however, how do they affect you? The usual answer
> is having to deal with other people's code that use the new features,
> but is it really a common problem in practice?

I want to work in a team where everyone knows 95% of the language
and other tools we are using. Not everyone knowing a different 10%:
like a room full of blind people groping different parts of an elephant.

I can't even meaningfully discuss C++ any more. Even if I made it a good
chunk of a part time job to study it, I'd have to find someone else who
does same.

(Why am I here? Due to some cross-posted thread that wasn't about C++.)

> I usually find that with each new C++ standard, there are some features
> I like, and some that I don't much like or are very unlikely to use.
> And there are always some that are nice ideas, but ugly or complicated
> in practice - most often due to backwards compatibility with the
> existing language (or C).

I can get shit done in nothing but C++98. Or C for that matter.

Newer C++ features are no longer about getting shit done but basically
envy of some higher level languages. I sense that C++ is in kind of
panic that the language won't attract new, younger programmers if it
doesn't become like Scala, Haskell, Python, or whatever.

None of that helps me.

It's very similar to when businesses chase new customers with
incentives, and take for granted their existing customers.

>> And that's nearly the only kind of user you're going to get
>> in a Usenet comp.* newsgroup.
>
> Well, you'll mainly get "long-time users" here, but I don't know if it's
> fair to say that most are put off by "crap" and "bloat". (I also don't
> know that it's /not/ fair to say that. I don't believe we have a basis
> for judging it.)

There is also survivorship bias; you don't see people who are not here
any more.

Where is good old Andrew Koenig? According to Google Groups search, he
last posted here almost exactly ten years ago (responding to a "C++ ==
Gagware" thread, on the same topic we are in now).

Scott Meyers lost interest in C++ in 2016.

Why would I stay interested in C++ if even die hard Scott Meyers won't
touch it any more?

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted.

On 08/12/2023 03:28, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2023-12-07, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 06/12/2023 23:42, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-05, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.
>>>
>>> I think that most long-time users of C++ are put off by all the crap
>>> that has gone into making it even more insanely bloated.
>>>
>>
>> How does this "crap" affect your coding? Maybe, for example, you don't
>> like fold expressions and parameter packs from newer C++ standards. If
>> you don't use them, however, how do they affect you? The usual answer
>> is having to deal with other people's code that use the new features,
>> but is it really a common problem in practice?
>
> I want to work in a team where everyone knows 95% of the language
> and other tools we are using. Not everyone knowing a different 10%:
> like a room full of blind people groping different parts of an elephant.
>

For some projects and teams, it works best if everyone understands
almost all of what everyone else is doing. In other projects and teams,
specialisation is the key to efficiency and it is enough if there are
perhaps just one or two people able to understand some parts of the
whole. You don't have to be capable of writing a class template like
std::variant<> in order to make use of it.

But if a more cohesive team with a strong overlap is what works best for
you and your projects, great. Define a subset of C++ that suits your
needs, and stick to it - expanding it only after you all make a point of
learning the new feature. Maybe your selection is made based on a
particular older C++ standard, or maybe it is based on particular
features, standard library headers, or other classification. That's all
fine and sensible. I think most projects and teams do this to at least
some extent.

But I don't see how additional features in C++ bother you. If you have
decided that C++17 is the standard you use, what's the problem if C++26
gains features you don't want?

> I can't even meaningfully discuss C++ any more. Even if I made it a good
> chunk of a part time job to study it, I'd have to find someone else who
> does same.

It's normal to have interests or knowledge that is not shared by those
around you. Even when it is job related, it is normal for each person
to know some things far better than the others around them. I know far
more about modern cpu design than anyone else in my department of
embedded programmers and electronics engineers. I doubt if I could have
a particularly meaningful conversation with any of them about it, even
in connection with the cpu cores we use every day - but I don't blame
ARM for making more advanced devices!

>
> (Why am I here? Due to some cross-posted thread that wasn't about C++.)
>
>> I usually find that with each new C++ standard, there are some features
>> I like, and some that I don't much like or are very unlikely to use.
>> And there are always some that are nice ideas, but ugly or complicated
>> in practice - most often due to backwards compatibility with the
>> existing language (or C).
>
> I can get shit done in nothing but C++98. Or C for that matter.

Sure - once a language is Turing complete, you don't /need/ anything
more. But it might make it easier or more efficient to write good code.
(And it might be more fun!)

>
> Newer C++ features are no longer about getting shit done but basically
> envy of some higher level languages.

I don't see that at all. I can see C++ taking inspiration from other
languages, but that's a different matter.

> I sense that C++ is in kind of
> panic that the language won't attract new, younger programmers if it
> doesn't become like Scala, Haskell, Python, or whatever.
>

Even if we assume that is true, is it a bad thing? C++98 has not gone
away. But if no one from the next generation uses C++, it /will/ fade
away. Do you think the people who make their living from C++ - working
to improve and enhance it, developing new libraries and features,
writing books, making compilers, teaching it - do you think they should
all decide that some people don't want to learn anything more, they
should call it a day and collectively retire or pick a different language?

> None of that helps me.
>

I'm sorry, but this all comes across as sulky and egoistic. I doesn't
help /me/ - therefore it's bad, it's crap, it's bloated, it's insane.
/I/ am not happy, therefore "most long-term users of C++" are not happy.

We all have parts of C++ that we like, and parts that we use (and the
more these overlap, the happier we are). And there will always be parts
that we don't like, and that we don't use. C++ is used in a vast array
of different ways and for different tasks. And as it continues to be
used in other areas, and as these needs change, habits change,
preferences change, the language and library grow. As compiler
technology improves and computers become more powerful, the language
changes and more is expected of it.

And the more this goes on, the larger a proportion of the language and
library any given person will not know about, and will not use.

When I first started programming, using BASIC on home computers as a
kid, I knew every statement and every function supported by the
language. When I first worked on embedded systems, I knew every opcode
of the microcontroller's core, and the details of every peripheral. On
many systems, every instruction the core executed was written by me.
The world has changed since then. My systems use SDK's from
manufacturers, third-party libraries, code written by colleagues and
customers. Things change - like it or not.

> It's very similar to when businesses chase new customers with
> incentives, and take for granted their existing customers.
>

No, it is not.

No one is taking your current C++ from you. You still get exactly the
same language as you've always used.

>>> And that's nearly the only kind of user you're going to get
>>> in a Usenet comp.* newsgroup.
>>
>> Well, you'll mainly get "long-time users" here, but I don't know if it's
>> fair to say that most are put off by "crap" and "bloat". (I also don't
>> know that it's /not/ fair to say that. I don't believe we have a basis
>> for judging it.)
>
> There is also survivorship bias; you don't see people who are not here
> any more.
>

True.

> Where is good old Andrew Koenig? According to Google Groups search, he
> last posted here almost exactly ten years ago (responding to a "C++ ==
> Gagware" thread, on the same topic we are in now).

And according to Wikipedia, he is 71. I'm guessing he is retired now.

>
> Scott Meyers lost interest in C++ in 2016.

No, he "retired" from C++ in 2015. After working for C++ (not just
working /in/ C++) for 25 years, he decided it was time to move on and
let others take over. Fair enough.

<http://scottmeyers.blogspot.com/2015/12/good-to-go.html>

People working on big projects for a long time, sometimes move on.
Maybe they outgrew the project. Maybe the project outgrew them. Maybe
they got old, or bored, or found other interests. Maybe they just
wanted a break or a change.

You can't possibly think that picking a couple of well-known C++ figures
who stopped writing C++ books justifies claiming that "most long-time
users of C++ are put off by all the crap" ?

>
> Why would I stay interested in C++ if even die hard Scott Meyers won't
> touch it any more?
>

Again, you are joking, right? Should /you/ stop being interested in
something just because someone else stops being interested in the
subject? Did you suddenly stop being interested in C when Dennis
Ritchie died?

I can fully understand not liking many of the latest features of C++, or
not feeling they are useful to your own needs. But I don't comprehend
how that stops you liking or using the language, or how you think that
makes the language bad for anyone else.

If you'd be interested in a thread about particular new features that
people may or may not like, then I think that could be helpful and
productive.

On 12/7/2023 6:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2023-12-07, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 06/12/2023 23:42, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-05, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Humm. It seems as if this group has gone quite "dark" on my end.
>>>
>>> I think that most long-time users of C++ are put off by all the crap
>>> that has gone into making it even more insanely bloated.
>>>
>>
>> How does this "crap" affect your coding? Maybe, for example, you don't
>> like fold expressions and parameter packs from newer C++ standards. If
>> you don't use them, however, how do they affect you? The usual answer
>> is having to deal with other people's code that use the new features,
>> but is it really a common problem in practice?
>
> I want to work in a team where everyone knows 95% of the language
> and other tools we are using. Not everyone knowing a different 10%:
> like a room full of blind people groping different parts of an elephant.
>
> I can't even meaningfully discuss C++ any more. Even if I made it a good
> chunk of a part time job to study it, I'd have to find someone else who
> does same.
>
> (Why am I here? Due to some cross-posted thread that wasn't about C++.)
>
>> I usually find that with each new C++ standard, there are some features
>> I like, and some that I don't much like or are very unlikely to use.
>> And there are always some that are nice ideas, but ugly or complicated
>> in practice - most often due to backwards compatibility with the
>> existing language (or C).
>
> I can get shit done in nothing but C++98. Or C for that matter.

So can I. However, once C++11 came out, well, I could all of a sudden
use atomics, membars and threads in a std way! :^)

Wrt C++98, I would still have to use my custom assembly code for
sensitive algorithms...

[...]

On 2023-12-08, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> But I don't see how additional features in C++ bother you. If you have
> decided that C++17 is the standard you use, what's the problem if C++26
> gains features you don't want?

If you don't learn those features, you no longer know C++. You're a
C++17 has-been.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted.

On 12/8/2023 2:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2023-12-08, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> But I don't see how additional features in C++ bother you. If you have
>> decided that C++17 is the standard you use, what's the problem if C++26
>> gains features you don't want?
>
> If you don't learn those features, you no longer know C++. You're a
> C++17 has-been.
>

Humm... Depends on your team and what the requirements are, in a sense?
Humm...

On 08/12/2023 23:41, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2023-12-08, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> But I don't see how additional features in C++ bother you. If you have
>> decided that C++17 is the standard you use, what's the problem if C++26
>> gains features you don't want?
>
> If you don't learn those features, you no longer know C++. You're a
> C++17 has-been.
>

I'm sorry, I can't relate to that. That is simply not how real-world
development is done, in my area at least (small-systems embedded
programming). But if you think that knowing and using all the latest
features of the latest standards is a requirement to stay "relevant" as
a C++ developer, then I can understand why you feel frustrated.