[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: OT: C++, yuck!

From: Greg A. Woods
Subject: Re: OT: C++, yuck!
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 02:39:42 -0500 (EST)

[ On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 at 21:00:34 (-0800), Gianni Mariani wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: OT:  C++, yuck!
> You can't be serious !

Well yes I am _VERY_ serious about how bad C++ is in general.

> *Every* language has problems.  There is no panacea.

I couldn't agree more!  C++ just has more than its fair share of
problems.  ;-)

> I happen to think that C++ has a large number of positive things going 
> for it

I think if you could find someone to do a careful and impartial academic
study of C++ you would find that it has many more negative aspects it
than it has positive aspects.

> and it's much further along the track of stabilization than any 
> other language with it's capabilities.

What, exactly, can that possibly mean?  If you mean "standardization",
then you're wrong.

Yes I wish ANSI et al would quit messing with C and inventing new
features and mis-features, but in reality there are more than enough
good compilers that all implement the same C language that you really
can't call it unstable in any way.  Common C++ compilers have much more
variation than C compilers and it is widely known and accepted that C++
code is inevitably far less portable than C code unless you stick to one
multi-platform compiler.

> So, even though C++ has "niggling yucky details" it is the Right(tm) 
> choice for many applications; and for a large subset, the only suitable 
> language.

Oh, P'lleeeeze!  You've got to be kidding.  Either that or you've been
poorly brainwashed, or have gone insane, or something.

I've read articles and papers that just barely manage to justify the
choice of C++ for some projects, but they only succeed at this
justification by hiding all but a tiny set of token problems under their
not so perfect carpets.

I've read multiple rebutals to those articles and papers which give more
than equal justification for choosing alternate languages.

Even Ada can be more easily justified for a random project than C++!

If you can't justify using C for a project (on language merits alone)
then C++ is right out of the running from the get go!

About the only justifiable reason I can think of for using C++ on any
random project of any size is that you've already got a bevy of
reasonably good C++ programmers in your harem and you'd rather just put
them to work than to try to retrain their stubborn stuck-up egotistic

> Only WUSSes are scared by "niggling yucky details" ... :-))

Well, yes there are the Klingon-style masochists who enjoy the challenge
of achieving perfection in a nearly impossible situation.....

Not my cup of tea, thank you.  There are more than enough niggling yucky
details in even my favourite Smalltalk and even in plain old-style C for
my mind to get a really good handle on!

I'd rather write my programs in languages that will give my efforts a
lasting elegance and which I can let others read with pride.

                                                                Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <address@hidden>;  <address@hidden>;  <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>

reply via email to

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