[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: refactoring when using CVS

From: Thornley, David
Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:15:20 -0600

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 3:23 AM
> To: Mark A. Flacy
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
> [ On , February 26, 2002 at 01:57:19 (-0600), Mark A. Flacy wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
> >
> > Of course, from your very own web page you state... 
> > 
> >   However I have so far resisted any temptation to learn anything
> >   significant about any of the bastardised half-breed 
> languages such as
> >   C++, Perl, etc., or even most of their ill-begotten 
> offspring such as
> >   Java, C#, etc.
> > 
> > it doesn't surprise me very much that you have such a 
> uninformed
> > opinion on the matter.   
> Learning the details necessary to program successfully in a given
> language does not mean that I don't know far more than enough 
> about them
> to have a very _informed_ opinion on them and their usage.  
> My opinions
> on those matters are in fact extremely well informed.
No they aren't.

You cannot possibly have extremely well-informed opinions on
languages you have never worked in.  You can have interesting
opinions, correct opinions, or even useful opinions, but not
extremely well-informed ones.  The *only* way to get an
extremely well-informed opinion about a language is to work
in it.  Had I never had to do a term project in Common Lisp,
I would have continued to have a woefully bad opinion of it.

Have you read Stroustrup's "Design and Evolution of C++"?
If you have not done that, or worked with a standard
implementation, you don't know beans about C++.  Similarly,
if you haven't done anything in Perl, you won't know how
easy it can be to get something working fast.  (It isn't
nearly as good for large projects, and it is necessary to
be careful or the code will become unreadable, but I've
got perfectly readable and understandable Perl programs
of over 300 lines.)

You give examples of bad software written with C++, and
indeed it's possible to write bad software in it.  My
experience is that it's possible to write bad software in
any language, including assembly, Fortran, BASIC, COBOL,
C, C++, Common Lisp, Scheme, Pascal, and Prolog.  Doubtless
it's possible to write bad Smalltalk also; that language is
on my "learn sometime" list, but I'm rather busy at the

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]