From: ········@bayou.uh.edu
Subject: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad)
Date:
Message-ID: <5l3bf4$cb7$1@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>
Daniel J. Salomon (·······@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca) wrote:
: In article <·······················@10.0.2.1>,
: [.. Long diatribe against C++ deleted.]
You forgot to insert "well deserved" between the "Long" and
"Diatribe".
[Snip]
: Apparently you don't know the history of C++. Bjarne Stroustrup
: originally distributed C++ compilers for free. He really believed that
: he had a better language for programmers.
Not a better language, just better than C. Well before C++ there were
vastly superior languages and there continue to be.
: Furthermore, an excellent
: implementation of C++, namely g++, is still free. Not only is g++
: free, but it also keeps up-to-date with changes in the language, and
: often leads other implementations with innovations.
I wouldn't call anything that helps spread the infestation of
C++ "excellent". More like tragic.
: C++ is not a pretty language, and its is not a safe language, but you
: have to use it for a couple of advanced projects before you fully
: appreciate its contribution to language design. I can't say I really
: like programming in C++, or teaching it, but I do respect the language
: for its advanced features.
C++ is totally unsuited for advanced projects. The only thing C++
and C can manage to do semi-decently are trivial projects where
being low level is a must. And when I say trivial, I MEAN
trivial. I say this having coded in C++ and knowing first hand
that it is a COUNTER productive tool. Projects are not completed
because of C++, they are completed DESPITE it. Furthermore C++
does not have any advanced features, unless you mean advanced
with respect to C which was archaic years ago. The "features"
that C++ has are horrible second-rate imitations of features
found in other, better languages for years.
: In short, there are solid reasons for the success of C++. It is not
: just a fluke, or some kind of industry conspiracy. Critics should try
: to include some solid facts in their attacks, instead of just throwing
: out wild accusations or ridicule.
It is a fluke. C++ rode on the cottails of C which rode on the
cottails of Unix. C is a sophisticated virus that came with the
Unix operating system and we've been stuck with it ever since.
These languages have no redeeming virtues and deserve to be ridiculed
and treated with contempt.
: --
: Daniel J. Salomon -- ·······@cs.UManitoba.CA
: Dept. of Computer Science / University of Manitoba
: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2 / (204) 474-8687
--
Cya,
Ahmed
Walk into the Whitehouse,
Right up to the President's desk,
Underneath my "Dead Boy's" shirt
There's a bomb strapped to my chest
"Blow Them Up" by Bomb Squadron
From: Dean Roddey
Subject: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad)
Date:
Message-ID: <33755392.2D6C@ng.netgate.net>
········@bayou.uh.edu wrote:
>
> C++ is totally unsuited for advanced projects. The only thing C++
> and C can manage to do semi-decently are trivial projects where
> being low level is a must. And when I say trivial, I MEAN
> trivial. I say this having coded in C++ and knowing first hand
> that it is a COUNTER productive tool. Projects are not completed
> because of C++, they are completed DESPITE it. Furthermore C++
> does not have any advanced features, unless you mean advanced
> with respect to C which was archaic years ago. The "features"
> that C++ has are horrible second-rate imitations of features
> found in other, better languages for years.
>
Hmmmm... Lets see... just for conversation.
1) Lots of large, successful, and powerful products in the world are
written in C++.
2) You can't write them in C++.
Is that a statement about C++, or about you? I've heard so many people
who are just anti-C++ that its become white noise to me. C++ is a
compromise that is intended to meet in the middle of the ease of use vs.
performance/power scale. As such, it is quite successful and used by
many people. There are more 'technically correct' languages that don't
have the performance or which make getting into the hardware or OS
details a PITA. And, in many cases, they just don't have enough
mindshare to be considered for a major project. If you don't like it,
don't use it. Simple enough. But you will be hard pressed to talk
someone into doing a major projects in Bubba's New Language, no matter
how nice it is because of the commercial practicalities of the real
world.
Just for the record though, C++ does have advanced features. However,
they exist side by side with the ability to get down to the nitty gritty
details. That makes it complex, but it also makes it widely applicable
to many different situations, all under one language umbrella. Its hard
for any other language to touch that.
---------------------
Dean Roddey
The CIDLib Class Libraries
'CIDCorp
·······@ng.netgate.net
http://ng.netgate.net/~droddey/
On Sat, 10 May 1997 22:05:22 -0700, Dean Roddey
<·······@ng.netgate.net> wrote:
I usually keep out of language flamewars, but this one got up my nose,
since it's an abuse of logic :-(
>Hmmmm... Lets see... just for conversation.
>
>1) Lots of large, successful, and powerful products in the world are
>written in C++.
>2) You can't write them in C++.
You just contradicted yourself.
However, to reiterate Ahmed's point, C++ is a bad language for large
projects. Note the wording there. Ahmed didn't say it's impossible to
write large things in C++, just that:
"C++ is totally unsuited for advanced projects."
Don't be a jerk.
>Is that a statement about C++, or about you? I've heard so many people
>who are just anti-C++ that its become white noise to me.
And I've heard so many people who are religious about UNIX and C[++]
that's becoming white noise to ME.
> C++ is a
>compromise that is intended to meet in the middle of the ease of use vs.
>performance/power scale.
Then why doesn't it? It can't scale to parallel architectures, it is
a bitch to optimise - yes, it's slow, unless the programmer is not
only a programmer, but a /low level/ programmer for this type of
platform, and knows what sort of constructs are fast. One of
the largest failings of C[++] is that you need to program in a certain
style to acheive efficiency, rather than a high level style better
suited to the problem you're dealing with.
> As such, it is quite successful and used by
>many people. There are more 'technically correct' languages that don't
>have the performance or which make getting into the hardware or OS
>details a PITA.
You contradicted yourself again. How can you call a language
technically correct if it's slow?
> And, in many cases, they just don't have enough
>mindshare to be considered for a major project. If you don't like it,
>don't use it. Simple enough. But you will be hard pressed to talk
>someone into doing a major projects in Bubba's New Language, no matter
>how nice it is because of the commercial practicalities of the real
>world.
I agree in letter, but not in spirit. I find it interestingly common
among C[++] fans that they seem to think that all the "enemy"
languages are "new" or "research" languages. So I agree, don't use
some new language like C or C++ that have only been around a decade or
so, and haven't been around for long enough to derive efficient
implementation strategies. But people still do. Why?
>Just for the record though, C++ does have advanced features. However,
>they exist side by side with the ability to get down to the nitty gritty
>details.
It has a few more modern features, but nothing really /advanced/...
Templates are a little like modern type inferencing, but that's
about all.
> That makes it complex, but it also makes it widely applicable
>to many different situations, all under one language umbrella.
Yeah, but it's very ropey.
> Its hard for any other language to touch that.
An amusing theory. Would you like a counterexample, or would you be
willing to go and find out yourself, before making such claims? Far
better mixtures of power and efficiency than C++ have existed for a
long, long, time.
>---------------------
>Dean Roddey
>The CIDLib Class Libraries
>'CIDCorp
>·······@ng.netgate.net
>http://ng.netgate.net/~droddey/
ABW (Rant over now, guys)
##### UNIX IS LAME - EVEN LINUX! #####
(My previous nice signature file was just vapourised by
a Linux kernel crash that ate almost all of my main
partition, so we will have to make do with a boring and
slightly bitter .sig)
Alaric B. Williams, ······@abwillms.demon.co.uk
FUN: http://www.abwillms.demon.co.uk/alaric/wfewad.htm
INTERESTING: http://www.abwillms.demon.co.uk/os/
OTHER: http://www.abwillms.demon.co.uk/
From: Dean Roddey
Subject: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad)
Date:
Message-ID: <337A8A0B.3013@ng.netgate.net>
Alaric B. Williams wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 May 1997 22:05:22 -0700, Dean Roddey
> <·······@ng.netgate.net> wrote:
>
> I usually keep out of language flamewars, but this one got up my nose,
> since it's an abuse of logic :-(
>
Whatever. I expressed my opinions. If you don't agree, state yours. I'm
not going to get into a pissing match with you on these points because
they are not 'winnable' arguments. As to the first part, that was
supposed to be a slightly humorous poke. Try decaf, it really tastes as
good as the real thing!
--
Dean Roddey
The CIDLib Class Libraries
'CIDCorp
·······@ng.netgate.net
http://ng.netgate.net/~droddey/
"Software engineers are, in many ways, similar to normal people"
From: James Logajan
Subject: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad)
Date:
Message-ID: <jameslEA042v.1DH@netcom.com>
········@bayou.uh.edu (········@Bayou.UH.EDU) wrote:
[elided]
: C++ is totally unsuited for advanced projects. The only thing C++
: and C can manage to do semi-decently are trivial projects where
: being low level is a must. And when I say trivial, I MEAN
: trivial.
[elided]
: C is a sophisticated virus that came with the
: Unix operating system and we've been stuck with it ever since.
: These languages have no redeeming virtues and deserve to be ridiculed
: and treated with contempt.
Ah. An obvious troll. I expect to see a lot of responses to this. Please,
gentlemen and gentlewomen, go easy on this poor waif. Make sure you allow
the poster enough room to remove the foot from their mouth.
P.S. I think your post got to my office here in San Jose California from
your machine somewhere in the bowels of the University of Houston in
Texas via an awful lot of TRIVIAL programs written in 'C' (and I bet
a few were written in 'C++'.) OSs, router programs, news readers, etc.
Sorry these programs were not complex enough for your taste.
P.P.S. I too think C++ has got problems, but with "friends" like this,
who needs enemies?