Re: RE : VC++6.0 and 7.0 are not supported anymore fromROOT4-04-2 or newer

From: Valeriy Onuchin <>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 21:51:49 +0200

OK, guys/girls
what I tried to say,
"root team" from "knignts/samurays"
is getting into "shelter for impotents"

Regrads Valeiiy wrote:

> Hello,
> > I understand some of your points. Myself, I am not a fan
> > of the "modern" cast syntax because, as you say, it makes
> > the code opaque to most readers and the pretext that you have
> > more type safety is just an illusion.
> If D derives from B, and Func() returns a B*, then:
> D* d = (D*)Func();
> will translate into a reinterpret_cast (i.e. no pointer offsets) if both
> B and D are forward declared, but in a static_cast if D is defined. The
> former case will lead to memory corruption if B has data members.
> Instead,
> D* d = static_cast< D* >( Func() );
> will result in an error if D is only known by forward declaration. I.e.,
> no chance of memory corruption. Seen it happen in code I had to maintain.
> > We have started using templates internally where we believe that we have
> > more to gain than to loose.
> Even Java has turned around with generics in Java 1.5.
> > We are not in 1992! [..] Young programers could not understand!
> Well, I was in high school in 1992. :) The point I'd like to make, is that
> it is very hard to know what can, and what can not be used if you picked up
> C++ later than in, say, 1992. People who've been dealing with C++ since that
> time know what is generally supported by most versions of compilers. People
> who joined later learn the standard, pick up the latest of the greatest, and
> simply do not have the working knowledge of which parts to shy away from to
> get maximum portability across outmoded compilers they have no acccess to (it
> is not as if MS is still selling VC++6, or that installing and using gcc2.7
> on a modern Linux distro is hassle free).
> > Anyhow, we welcome comments like yours. It would be good if
> > more people could express their opinion.
> Well, I think static type safety is overvalued. However, the problem with
> C++ is that its dynamic type safety is epsilon. New-style casts and templates
> do help static type safety, and since that is all the type safety that C++
> has to offer, might as well use it.
> Best regards,
> Wim
> --
> -- --
> "Stop making excuses for your software." --first step towards quality
Received on Thu May 12 2005 - 21:53:05 MEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jan 02 2007 - 14:45:07 MET