By bloid
via waffle.wootest.net
Published: Aug 31 2008 / 14:29
I really don’t like C++, because it tips the equation of “what’s less likely to increase dramatically over time, and what should we therefore choose to optimize for — CPU or man hours?” on its end. It may be great for Mars landers, operating systems and embedded systems where you really need to know what to allocate on the stack or the heap, and in which order to destruct it, but that’s not what it’s most often used for. That such a convoluted package of statements and pseudo-backwards-compatibility still thrives today is a concept I cannot grasp without the aid of powerful narcotics.
Comments
joecoder replied ago:
A stream of baseless personal opinions and obscenities. Not worth the time to read it.
noahz replied ago:
this
planetmcd replied ago:
I voted down too, but what obscenities?
tgautier replied ago:
What's with all the no votes? Can't someone have an opinion? I may not agree with the poster but it was a fun post to read nevertheless. (actually, I pretty much do agree)
joecoder replied ago:
Of course someone can have an opinion. My opinion about the author's opinion is above. Possibly, I'm not the only one with a similar opinion. That would explain the no votes.
planetmcd replied ago:
I don't like any of the languages referenced in the post, but I think that I didn't really learn anything from the post either. I don't think there is much meat to the post that it merits recommending to others. That said, I don't think it ever represents itself as anything more than a personal opinion piece. The author does make caveats that it is his own opinion, and nothing more and it did not strike me as a flame post.
In one case the author points out that he feels like he's missing out on a cool web app framework (Django) because he can't get past Python. I share that feeling. Reading through the Django book online, it seems very elegant, I just have a tough time with Python. Computer Languages are for 2 things, computers and people. Some are better/exclusive for some computers and some are better/exclusive for some people.
joecoder replied ago:
Well said. My down vote was also because I wouldn't recommend the article to others. I agree the author did not present the information as anything other than his personal opinion.
lincolnthree replied ago:
C++ wasn't designed to save man-hours. It was designed to be a relatively low-level (high level at the time) language that runs natively on the CPU of whatever it is compiled for (unlike Java and interpreted languages). C and C++ were designed to be the fastest, most powerful, "you can do anything you want", even tough the hardware directly, languages.
zynasis replied ago:
bad article is bad
Voters For This Link (9)
Voters Against This Link (21)