From: ········@bayou.uh.edu
Subject: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad)
Date:
Message-ID: <5l8fk8$41b$1@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>
Daniel Wang (·······@atomic.CS.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
[Snip]
: C++ sucks for X and C++ is great for Y aren't contradictory claims if X and
: Y are different tasks. Now if everyone would just be clear about what X and
: Y there probably be less flamage. I guess of course then the arguments will
: just devolve into whether most tasks are like X or Y, so we can figure out
: C++'s suckfullness on average.
This is an excellent point and as one whose comments have done their
share of stepping on toes (more like dropping anvils on feet :), I'll
make my ideas of what I want clear.
I do in fact speak of general purpose programming (at least tasks that
I find myself doing which seem to be scattered into various domains),
however I do highly prize abstraction facilities -- a point you mentioned
that C++ is not particularly strong in and which I wholeheartedly
agree with. I value conceptual elegance and a distancing from low
level concepts. When I write code, I don't want to be pestered with
mundane tasks like separate compilation and linking coupled with
externs, memory management, and implementation of Yet Another String
Class (YASC). This is the sort of stuff that could be amusing to
use for teaching concepts to neophytes, but it's the sort of thing
that I like to forget about when I'm ready to do real work.
Performance is only an issue when it becomes an issue (ie: the
program is much too slow). Then and only then do I worry about
performance, and I've yet to reach that phase.
[Snip]
Excellent post.
--
Cya,
Ahmed
In order to satisfy their mania for conquest, lives are squandered
Discharge