httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>
Subject Re: the C++ disaster (was Re: Source code - optimised assembler)
Date Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:05:24 GMT
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:

> 
> > You can always argue for every project done in C++ that it was just that
> > the programmers did it wrong.  If so, then all I can say is that C++ makes
> > it awfully easy to do it wrong.
> 
> We seem to have made a large leap here. Now you are saying that _every_
> project done in C++ has gone wrong. I can demonstrate several that

No, I'm not saying that I am just saying that saying C++ does not
have the property of being a bad language just because any example 
brought up can be due to the programmers doesn't make sense.

> haven't, and I'm sure I'm not alone. There are a lot of crap programmers
> out there, and they write a lot of crap code. Many of them write crap
> code in C++. This tells us nothing about C++.

No, but looking at trends does tell you things about C++.  If everyone is
a crap programmer, then perhaps it isn't the programmers at fault.  
Even if it is the programmers, if that is all you have to work with 
in terms of programmers then it doesn't matter who is at fault; choosing
C++ would be a bad idea.

My dislike of C++ isn't due to a dislike of OOP.  There are good
OOP languages that do work.  My problems with C++ are that it suffers
from being based on C too much.  C is a pretty low level language.
If I am going to use an object oriented language effectively, I
don't want a higher level language.

I am, however, not convinced that the gains from using an object
oriented language are that great.  Many of the concepts are good, but
they can be used in C.  Heck, I have seen books on object oriented
assembler.


Mime
View raw message