C++Talk.NET C++ language newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  So You Think You Know C++ Goto page 1, 2  Next          C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ Language (Moderated) View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message David Barto Guest Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 10:40 pm    Post subject: So You Think You Know C++ Quiz: Answers on the other side. 1) How long have you been using c++ 2) Name a compiler which is 100% standards comformant 3) Name the GoF 4) Spell the names of the authors of the "Design Patterns" book. 5) Spell the name of the author of 'The C++ Standard Library, A Tutorial and Reference" 6) Spell the authors name who wrote "Modern C++ Design" 7) Spell the authors name who wrote "The C++ Programming Language 3rd Edition" Answers: 1) Less than 1 year: 1 point 1-5 years: 2 points 5-10 years: 3 points 10-20 years: 2 points more than 20 years: 1 point before 1980: -10 points, c++ didn't exist before 1980 If your name is Bjarne Stroustrup: 5 points for creating c with classes 2) There are none. -5 points for each compiler you named. -5 points for disagreeing with my claim that none are 100% conformant -10 points if you have ever written a c++ compiler. 3) Jiang Quin, Zhang Chunqiao, Yao Wenyuan and Wang Hongwen - or - Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson and John Vlissides +5 points for naming both -2 points for each authors LAST name you forgot. -2 points for each authors FIRST name you forgot. -5 points for being a member of either GoF -10 points if you can see the book from where you are taking this test 4) Answer nicely buried in Answer #3 +1 point for each first/last name you spelled correctly +5 bonus points for spelling 'Vlissides' correctly +1 point for owning the book +1 point for READING the book +3 points for UNDERSTANDING the book -13 points if you can see the book from where you are taking this test -13 points for being any one of the authors 5) Nicolai M. Josuttis +2 points for spelling the first name correctly +2 points for spelling the last name correctly +1 points for remembering the middle initial -5 points if you ARE Mr. Josuttis +1 point for owning the book +1 point for READING the book +3 points for UNDERSTANDING the book -10 points if you can see the book from where you are taking this test 6) Andrei Alexandrescu +2 points for spelling the first name correctly +2 points for spelling the last name correctly +1 point for spelling both the first AND last name correctly -5 points if you ARE Mr. Alexandrescu +1 point for owing the book. +1 point for READING the book +3 points for UNDERSTANDING the book -10 points if you can see the book from where you are taking this test +2 points if you have been to his web site (moderncppdesign.com) -10 points if you looked at the picture of the naked chicks. 7) Bjarne Stroustrup +2 points for spelling the first name correctly +2 points for spelling the last name correctly +1 point for spelling both the first AND last name correctly -5 points if you ARE Mr. Stroustrup +1 point for owing the book. +1 point for READING the book +3 points for UNDERSTANDING the book -10 points if you can see the book from where you are taking this test Scoring: 40 to 57 points, you cheated 20 to 39 points, you probably cheated, you don't know a lot about c++, and you know how to use google to search for the answers to this quiz. 10 to 19 points, you don't know much about c++ and you most likely should get to a book store an purchase a few books. (Like the ones mentioned in this quiz) 0 to 9 points, you most likely understand the basics, have one or more of these books, and might have even opened one once -15 to -1 points, you own one or more of the books, and even read one. You understand c++, and a little study won't hurt. -30 to -16 points, you own all the books and can see them from where you are sitting. You have read most of them, and mean to read the last one 'real soon now.' You might even be an author of one. -61 to -31 points, you are an author of one of these books, have read all of them and know more about c++ that most of the rest of the people reading this newsgroup. -62 You wrote all these books, and you have all of them within site. You cheated, but you know so much about c++ it doesn't matter. -- David Barto [email]barto (AT) ucsd (DOT) edu[/email] [email]barto (AT) visionpro (DOT) com[/email] From a Marketing type: Don't give me any technical reason why something can't be done. If you really believed in the product you'd make it work. [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top Daveed Vandevoorde Guest Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2003 8:43 pm    Post subject: Re: So You Think You Know C++ David Barto <barto (AT) pacbell (DOT) net> wrote: Quote: Quiz: Answers on the other side. 1) How long have you been using c++ 2) Name a compiler which is 100% standards comformant [...] Quote: Answers: [...] 2) There are none. The "sample answer" is not right (e.g., Comeau Computing's latest offering is 100% compliant). Daveed [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top Markus Werle Guest Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2003 11:35 pm    Post subject: Re: So You Think You Know C++ David Barto wrote: Quote: Quiz: Hi mods! You let this question pass? Are you gonna let all answers pass, too? Quote: Answers on the other side. 1) How long have you been using c++ Not long enough. Quote: 2) Name a compiler which is 100% standards comformant How do you measure? I mean hp's aCC is 99.9% conformant (they say) but it lacks full template machinery and hp refuses to obtain advice from David Abrahams (though he offered it). So for me this compiler has 0% standard conformance due to its inability to compile things like boost or daixtrose or some simple template tricks. gcc once was fine and then they had this parser rewrite which is OK some day, but at present arms and legs cut off for another few months. Intel C++ (and all those EDG-based ones). I guess EDG has 100% of what one can obtain today, but icpc crashes on exception throw (drives me nuts) Q: There is no common sense about what "conformity" means. Are we able to still find a good measure for compilers? I still dream of some C++-Spec suite which creates a nice html/xml table with red buttons on missing or wrong-implemented features so that we can really compare the compilers available. Markus -- Build your own Expression Template Library with Daixtrose! Visit http://daixtrose.sourceforge.net/ [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top WW Guest Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 10:37 am    Post subject: Re: So You Think You Know C++ Daveed Vandevoorde wrote: Quote: David Barto <barto (AT) pacbell (DOT) net> wrote: Quiz: Answers on the other side. 1) How long have you been using c++ 2) Name a compiler which is 100% standards comformant [...] Answers: [...] 2) There are none. The "sample answer" is not right (e.g., Comeau Computing's latest offering is 100% compliant). According to a recent post in the thread "problem with Koenig lookup ?" people seems to suspect that it handles a template related issue not according to the standard. IMO what the OP meant was not only deliberate violations of the standard but also possible errors. All this does not mean I think Comeau is not compliant. I just mean that since it is pretty new, there can still be errors. So if you are paranoid (as I am ) it is safe to assume that you can still have surprises with each compiler out there. :-) -- WW aka Attila [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top Dilip Guest Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2003 1:05 pm    Post subject: Re: So You Think You Know C++ [email]google (AT) vandevoorde (DOT) com[/email] (Daveed Vandevoorde) wrote in message news:<52f2f9cd.0309250545.597ecb49 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>... Quote: The "sample answer" is not right (e.g., Comeau Computing's latest offering is 100% compliant). I am just curious here but what about the results of boost regression logs? http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/ under win32 MS VC++ 7.1 seems to have a pass score 100%. not even gcc 3.3.1 matches that. should we take it to mean the test cases cover most of the standard conformance issues? --Dilip [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top David Abrahams Guest Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2003 4:56 pm    Post subject: Re: So You Think You Know C++ [email]rdilipk (AT) lycos (DOT) com[/email] (Dilip) writes: Quote: google (AT) vandevoorde (DOT) com (Daveed Vandevoorde) wrote in message news:<52f2f9cd.0309250545.597ecb49 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>... The "sample answer" is not right (e.g., Comeau Computing's latest offering is 100% compliant). I am just curious here but what about the results of boost regression logs? http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/ under win32 MS VC++ 7.1 seems to have a pass score 100%. not even gcc 3.3.1 matches that. should we take it to mean the test cases cover most of the standard conformance issues? No! Using the boost regression tests as a measure of compiler conformance is very dangerous. These tests are only meant to show how the Boost libraries are performing. Inasmuch as the results reflect conformance at all, they cover only a limited range of conformance issues, and the Boost libraries are full of workarounds for various compiler problems. A compiler that does particularly well may just be getting more attention from developers than others. It may even be compiling incorrect code which really ought to cause an error on a conforming compiler (we're not perfect either). A compiler that does badly may just reflect a configuration problem on the part of the tester. I'm sure your question was well-intentioned, but thinking of our tests that way is really a bad thing for the C++ community. To everyone: please do not misuse our regression tests. They say something about what you can expect from our libraries when used with various compilers, but nothing more. If you want to measure compiler conformance there are a number of professionally-written suites which are specifically designed to do that. I believe GCC also has a suite of tests. Be warned, though, that whether even those tests measure anything useful is a contentious issue among compiler developers. You may need to look very carefully at the results (beyond the raw percentages) in order to get an accurate picture of anything. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top Pavel Vozenilek Guest Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 1:44 am    Post subject: Re: So You Think You Know C++ [email]rdilipk (AT) lycos (DOT) com[/email] (Dilip) wrote in message > I am just curious here but what about the results of boost regression Quote: logs? http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/ under win32 MS VC++ 7.1 seems to have a pass score 100%. not even gcc 3.3.1 matches that. should we take it to mean the test cases cover most of the standard conformance issues? Quite a many people use MSVC and contribute workarounds. Less known compilers often trail behind. /Pavel [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top Greg Comeau Guest Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 1:52 am    Post subject: Re: So You Think You Know C++ In article <8bc3089c.0309261141.4c1c9a32 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>, Dilip <rdilipk (AT) lycos (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: google (AT) vandevoorde (DOT) com (Daveed Vandevoorde) wrote in message news:<52f2f9cd.0309250545.597ecb49 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>... The "sample answer" is not right (e.g., Comeau Computing's latest offering is 100% compliant). I am just curious here but what about the results of boost regression logs? http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/ under win32 MS VC++ 7.1 seems to have a pass score 100%. not even gcc 3.3.1 matches that. should we take it to mean the test cases cover most of the standard conformance issues? No, no, and did I say no? In fact, parts of boost purposely use extensions. That boost can measure or be used as a measure of conformance is a widespread myth, that we at Comeau get emailed about often, and that I've presented to the boost folks numerous times, and sure wish they would issue statements to the contrary. There are many reasons for the results in the boost regression logs, good and bad, and many have nothing to do with being compliant. As an example, look at the differences in numbers for the two different win32 platform tests named win32 and win32_metacomm for the _same_ compilers. -- Greg Comeau/4.3.3:Full C++03 core language + more Windows backends Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90. Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it? [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top Eugene Alterman Guest Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 2:03 am    Post subject: Re: So You Think You Know C++ [email]google (AT) vandevoorde (DOT) com[/email] (Daveed Vandevoorde) wrote in message news:<52f2f9cd.0309250545.597ecb49 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>... Quote: The "sample answer" is not right (e.g., Comeau Computing's latest offering is 100% compliant). And where is the proof? The latest Comeau release 4.3.0.1 happily compiles the following ill-formed sample (no unique final overrider) without issuing a single complain. And I suspect that if not for the post to this group more than a year ago it would not have been taken care of in 4.3.1 beta either. class A { virtual void f(); }; class B: virtual A { void f(); }; class C1: B {}; class C2: B {}; class D: C1, C2 {}; I believe that a claim that a compiler is 100% percent standard compliant is as credible as any claim that some software is 100% bug free. BTW, I wonder, is there any c++ compiler besides gcc (and Comeau online beta) that detects the error in the above sample? [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top Edward Diener Guest Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 10:25 am    Post subject: Re: So You Think You Know C++ Greg Comeau wrote: Quote: In article <8bc3089c.0309261141.4c1c9a32 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>, Dilip <rdilipk (AT) lycos (DOT) com> wrote: [email]google (AT) vandevoorde (DOT) com[/email] (Daveed Vandevoorde) wrote in message news:<52f2f9cd.0309250545.597ecb49 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>... The "sample answer" is not right (e.g., Comeau Computing's latest offering is 100% compliant). I am just curious here but what about the results of boost regression logs? http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/ under win32 MS VC++ 7.1 seems to have a pass score 100%. not even gcc 3.3.1 matches that. should we take it to mean the test cases cover most of the standard conformance issues? No, no, and did I say no? In fact, parts of boost purposely use extensions. That boost can measure or be used as a measure of conformance is a widespread myth, that we at Comeau get emailed about often, and that I've presented to the boost folks numerous times, and sure wish they would issue statements to the contrary. This is unfair of you, Greg, since Boost folks have never claimed, AFAIK, that they are a measure of C++ compiler conformance, but only of Boost's ability to compiler Boost library code using various compilers and settings. It is people's incorrect assumptions about Boost regression tests which are at fault. A scientist who has never said X is not responsible for issuing a disclaimer that he has never said X if X is incorrect. Nonetheless, Dave Abrahams strongly stated in another post in this thread what you have said above about using Boost as a measure of C++ compiler conformance, because so many people mistakenly assume that if a compiler fails a Boost regression test it must mean that the compiler is at fault in regards to C++ standards compliance. [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top WW Guest Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 9:30 pm    Post subject: Re: So You Think You Know C++ Greg Comeau wrote: Quote: No, no, and did I say no? In fact, parts of boost purposely use extensions. That boost can measure or be used as a measure of conformance is a widespread myth, that we at Comeau get emailed about often, and that I've presented to the boost folks numerous times, and sure wish they would issue statements to the contrary. There are many reasons for the results in the boost regression logs, good and bad, and many have nothing to do with being compliant. As an example, look at the differences in numbers for the two different win32 platform tests named win32 and win32_metacomm for the _same_ compilers. Greg look at this page please: http://www.boost.org/status/compiler_status.html And especially this text: "These tables are not a good indication of a particular compiler's compliance with the C++ Standard. The Boost libraries often contain workarounds which mask compiler deficiencies." And the page was "Revised 04 February 2003" so it is there for nearly 8 months. -- WW aka Attila [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top Dilip Guest Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 10:13 pm    Post subject: Re: So You Think You Know C++ David Abrahams <dave (AT) boost-consulting (DOT) com> wrote Quote: I'm sure your question was well-intentioned, but thinking of our tests that way is really a bad thing for the C++ community. I am being pummelled here. Greg Comeau seems to have heated up in another thread while replying to my question. Folks, I am not an expert like you guys. I am just a poor developer who has been around the block long enough to realize the primary goal of a general purpose library is not to ensure standard conformance among various compilers. Being a Microsoft developer for years it was just a little heartening for me to see VC++ 7.1 passing majority of the test cases (although workarounds could've been written). I was genuinely curious -- thats why I asked that question. thanks for the answers David and Greg --Dilip [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top Joshua Lehrer Guest Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 10:16 pm    Post subject: Re: So You Think You Know C++ [email]google (AT) vandevoorde (DOT) com[/email] (Daveed Vandevoorde) wrote in message news:<52f2f9cd.0309250545.597ecb49 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>... Quote: David Barto <barto (AT) pacbell (DOT) net> wrote: Quiz: Answers on the other side. 1) How long have you been using c++ 2) Name a compiler which is 100% standards comformant [...] Answers: [...] 2) There are none. The "sample answer" is not right (e.g., Comeau Computing's latest offering is 100% compliant). Daveed Not true. I posted a bug a few days ago, with the subject "EDG Bug?" As Comeau uses the EDG front end, they have the bug as well. I tested my sample code on the website that Comeau provides, and the online compiler couldn't compile it either. I'd be happy to repost the code here, bug Google is having some newsgroup issues, and I can't read the post. Sorry. joshua lehrer factset research systems NYSE:FDS [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top Greg Comeau Guest Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 10:25 pm    Post subject: Re: So You Think You Know C++ In article <E1tdb.29417$ai7.10868 (AT) newsread1 (DOT) news.atl.earthlink.net>, Edward Diener <eldiener (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote: Quote: Greg Comeau wrote: In article <8bc3089c.0309261141.4c1c9a32 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>, Dilip <rdilipk (AT) lycos (DOT) com> wrote: [email]google (AT) vandevoorde (DOT) com[/email] (Daveed Vandevoorde) wrote in message news:<52f2f9cd.0309250545.597ecb49 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>... The "sample answer" is not right (e.g., Comeau Computing's latest offering is 100% compliant). I am just curious here but what about the results of boost regression logs? http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/ under win32 MS VC++ 7.1 seems to have a pass score 100%. not even gcc 3.3.1 matches that. should we take it to mean the test cases cover most of the standard conformance issues? No, no, and did I say no? In fact, parts of boost purposely use extensions. That boost can measure or be used as a measure of conformance is a widespread myth, that we at Comeau get emailed about often, and that I've presented to the boost folks numerous times, and sure wish they would issue statements to the contrary. This is unfair of you, Greg, since Boost folks have never claimed, AFAIK, that they are a measure of C++ compiler conformance, but only of Boost's ability to compiler Boost library code using various compilers and settings. It is people's incorrect assumptions about Boost regression tests which are at fault. Sorry. I think Boost is great, and hence my animation, since I'd like to see any confusion avoided for it. I agree, to the best of my knowledge, they never claimed such, and this is indeed people's incorrect assumptions. However... Quote: A scientist who has never said X is not responsible for issuing a disclaimer that he has never said X if X is incorrect. .... said disclaimer still seems like the right thing to do, whether one is not responsible for the problem or not. Quote: Nonetheless, Dave Abrahams strongly stated in another post in this thread what you have said above about using Boost as a measure of C++ compiler conformance, because so many people mistakenly assume that if a compiler fails a Boost regression test it must mean that the compiler is at fault in regards to C++ standards compliance. But that's my point, as so many people do mistakenly make this assumption. I know that persons misread the URL and decide from it that boost is not for them. Of what benefit is it to not issue a warning or whatever on their webpages? -- Greg Comeau/4.3.3:Full C++03 core language + more Windows backends Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90. Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it? [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top David Abrahams Guest Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 6:23 am    Post subject: Re: So You Think You Know C++ [email]rdilipk (AT) lycos (DOT) com[/email] (Dilip) writes: Quote: David Abrahams <dave (AT) boost-consulting (DOT) com> wrote I'm sure your question was well-intentioned, but thinking of our tests that way is really a bad thing for the C++ community. I am being pummelled here. Whoa. I never meant to pummel; sorry if it seemed that way. I feel an obligation to nip in the bud the idea that the Boost tests are an appropriate compiler conformance measure. We've had several complaints from compiler vendors (not just Greg) that it was being taken that way. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ Language (Moderated) All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2  Next Page 1 of 2   Jump to: Select a forum C/C++----------------C LanguageC Language (Moderated)C++ Language (Moderated)C++ language (comp.lang.c++)C++ language, library and standards Non-English C/C++ Newsgroups----------------C++ (German)C++ (French)  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.