[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: OT: C++, yuck!

From: Thomas S. Urban
Subject: Re: OT: C++, yuck!
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:29:55 -0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 12:59:48 -0500, Greg A. Woods sent 2.8K bytes:
> [ On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 01:19:22 (-0800), Thomas S. Urban wrote: 
> ]
> I don't really have time to get into a detailed discussion, and
> certainly not in this forum!  ;-)

You don't really have time to get into it - that's funny.

> I recommend you read the published articles, papers, and such that
> describe problems with C++ -- for the most part they've only confirmed
> what I knew intuitively from studying the language directly.
> Alan Kay's comment about OO vs. C++ sums it all up rather nicely though.

I've read quite a bit about C++, problems, design, use, etc.  I'll
gladly read more papers and analysis on the subject (ref or URL?).  Cute
one liner quotes don't really qualify in my book.

> > There are a couple features, like operator overloading, that
> > I think would have been better left out of the langauge, but even those
> > can be fine if used with restraint.
> You see that's a very perfect example of a fundamental flaw with the
> very idea of a language like C++ (or Java or C# or any other attempt to
> describe a half-baked Modula-style language as "object oriented").
> Operator overloading should not be an issue -- it must be a very natural
> and inherent part of any OO language.  Look at the very invention of the
> concept in Smalltalk to see why.

There are many things you can do in C that are a bad idea.  The same
applies to other langauges I'm familiar with. You can effectively use
C++ without operator overloading except in the case when you want to do
generic programming with classes that behave similarly to native types.
Sometimes this is appropriate, sometimes not.

> > In short, C++ is a good langauge if your developers know how to use it,
> Mabye -- but y'all would be much more productive and useful to society
> if you'd try to forget C++ and everything you know about it (right after
> you've re-written all your code in some more cost effective language, of
> course!).

Pttfth.  Maybe you'd be more useful to society if you'd stop trying to
brow-beat the people on the CVS list into your stubborn view of the

> > > 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!
> > 
> > That is silly.  What if you could justify C, except you need dynamic
> > binding too? Then could you justify C++?  What about you need all the
> > features of C, with generic programming as well?  Then is C++ back in
> > the running?
> "dynamic binding" isn't a feature you could ever possibly decide on
> needing up front for any kind of project you'd ever even get close to
> justifying C for!  Get real!

You're wrong. Read what I wrote again.  Projects I am working on satisfy
the description I gave.  Then again, I'm not real, but I'm working on

What's done to children, they will do to society.

reply via email to

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