tadzio

Weird accents? hmm... I talk like that! These guys aren't from Britian (as one may expect) they're from "Blighty" (as so am I)

I have to agree with Atheist and Bluesmudge ( though I use two char tab indents

Here is a example of Erlang in action: Erlang: The Movie - a short video about Erlang, the functional programming language.

Yes, I'd probably go for something like Erlang Seriously though, bascule, you make a great argument. I'm am now munching my way through "erlang-book-part1.pdf" and it's pretty tasty It's vaguely reminiscent of the Forth language program listings, for the Jupiter Ace, that I used to marvel at in Your Computer Magazine (UK comp mag) back in 1983 Thanks for sharing this.

The way you describe this model is very interesting. A few years ago, I wrote a serial comms protocol that used Win32's APC. The code was pretty complex and, as a result, not something that could ever be considered 'eye candy' I now realise (from what you have said here and what it has caused my to investigate) that I was probably trying to reinvent a rudimentary Actor-like structure in the code. So, on these grounds, I'm very inclined to agree with your opinion. Having a language to abstract this a little further, than I could encapsulate in the C++ objects I defined, would have been desirable. But, this brings me to another question: Is it right or possible to aim for a single all encompassing language? I've always thought it best to choose a language for a certain job. C++ does lots stuff but it doesn't serve the same purpose as HTML. PHP is a great language for a web server but it can't be compared it to the function that Javascript serves at the client-side. Chocolate is pleasant enough to eat but useless for making teapots out of.... I'm interest in your opinion on this. (BTW: Thanks for putting me on to Actor - I had heard about when I was first learning C++ back in '89 but I just ignored it as it wasn't available to me back then in the dark ages before the Internet. I should read up on it anyway because I could have used the ideas - like when the C guys used write in Quasi-C based on C++ ideas).

At first I thought it was me. But, when I put my glasses on to have closer look I realised it was, indeed, Oppenheimer. It was the pipe that through me, I have one just the same

Just to be clear when you say "concurrent" you do mean "processing simultaneously in parallel with other threads”?

Should "garbage collection"and "concurrency" really be part of a language's definition? I think: the program itself should ensure all objects created are destroyed accordingly; and the ability to determine the deployment of a thread or fiber should be a kernel API consideration.

Whilst I agree with this point of view, I still can’t recommend VB as good response to the question "...for a newbiee which is good one to start with ?" (sic) Besides, I know from bitter experience that every shortcut made with VB is later added to the end of the project, double its original measure. VB doesn't really work. It's very good for quickly putting together visual prototypes and for trivial tasks (in the absence of a good scripting language like perl, rexx or python) but anymore than that and it usually turns out to be the wrong language choice in the end. Sorry to sound so down on VB, it's just that I have to deal with it everyday at some level, because I have to write in a language my colleagues can later maintain and so VB wins by default. I been writing in C++ for 19 years now (since the release of Zortech C++) and having to go through each day with the gloom of VB and its insidious programming model makes me wonder what the hell ever happen to the computer industry. “Back in the day” I’d go work with smile on my face, humming I.G.Y and thinking about the possibilities C/C++ could bring. Nowadays, everything through VB-vision seems so vacuous. It is for these reasons I can’t recommend VB “for a newbie”.

I have given Bascule's signature some serious consideration and I have concluded that you are correct in your observation. I am, now, assured that he's basically a computer.

English is an ambiguous language and thus unsuitable for the purposes of computer programming.

What's wrong with C++? Does this not suffice? If not, why?

Genecks means well but, not having used VB, he doesn't really know how dangerous a suggestion that is. Don't go anywhere near VB, it's very bad for you (it’s analogous to smoking cigarettes or eating junk food - you'll regret it in the long run). VB will lead you into another world that has nothing to do with computer science; an obnoxious world that is both crass and dull. I'd say start writing console apps in C and then (quickly) go on to C++ - looking around at a low level without getting bogged down with Visual stuff. Get used to the fundamental principals of the language: who the stack and heap works, standard libraries, dynamic memory allocation, file handling and all the stuff good introductory books like K&R and Stroustrup will show you. Then try: poking around with Win32 kernel and MFC (assuming you’re using Windows), then TCP/IP stuff, experiment with rudimentary multi-threading, maybe serial comms, NT services and just have a load of fun making the machine do stuff. Then take on the Visual stuff later. NB: C/C++ = Good, VB = Bad.

I did intend my previous post to be jocular but, looking back, it just sounds pedantic and therefore not actually helpful. Seriously though, Pangloss is right in what he says; if can get Sendmail or IIS up and running they would run as services and thus be capable of forwarding your email even when you not logged in. If you can't get Sendmail or IIS going then let us know here. You may be able to run Outlook Express as a service using SRVANY (I've never tried it before but I’ll experiment with it and tell you how to do it - if you need me to). I am, of course, making the massive assumption that you using Win2000 or WinXP. Win9X doesn’t support services. I know Vista’s “Windows Mail” (the new Outlook Express) is so tight on Identities that running before logging on is probably out of the question. If you using a Non-Microsoft O/S then I'm barking completely up the wrong tree

Pangloss' is right, using Outlook Express does have this disadvantage: "you'd have to leave it running all the time." But I must say, Sendmail and IIS are both subject to the same disadvantage: if you don't keep them running they're not going to forward your mail.

Hi, If you use Outlook Express, you can create a rule whereby all messages received are automatically forwarded to a specified email address (or addresses). Click on the "Tools" menu and select the "Message Rules" option, then the "Mail" category. (NB: I'm basing this information on the version I have on my PC which is Outlook Express 6). When the "Message Rules" form appears, click on the "New" button. Scroll the bottom of the options listed in section "1. Select the Conditions for your rule:" and select the "For all messages" option. Then, in the next section "2. Select the Actions for you rule:", select "Forward it to people". Then, in section "3. Rule Description" is should say: "Apply this rule after the message arrives For all messages Forward it to people" Here the word "people" is a hyperlink, click on it and another form will appear called "Select People". You can either type in a single address or multiple addresses (semi-colon seperated). The in section "4. Name of the rule", give it meaningful name like "Auto Forward to user@domain.com" and hit the OK button to save the rule. You can forward any existing mail by clicking the "Apply Now..." button, there and then. Later, all you need to do is leave Outlook Express running with "Check for new messages every X mins" set (see "Tools Menu", "Options", "General Tab"). I hope this helps