Warp wrote:
>   You are not discussing. You are bashing based on prejudice.

I think it's fair to say it isn't prejudice that the philosophy of C++ is 
that you don't pay for features where you don't use them. I'll admit the 
syntax seems much cleaner than I thought it would be, because I assumed 
they'd be doing something like Boost. However, C++ still doesn't have lambda 
expressions, and I'm rather at a loss why the people working on the 
standards called it that, since they aren't lambdas and they *didn't* 
include "lambda" as a keyword.

I gave examples of actual code that works in any language that has lambdas, 
and you tell me I'm not discussing C++ and that I'm prejudice. It sounds 
more like you're prejudice than me, really, defending C++ for some reason 
without actually offering any evidence I'm wrong. If I'm prejudiced and 
right, what does it matter that I'm prejudiced?

C++ sucks to the extent that you don't pay runtime overhead for features 
where you don't use them. This philosophy leads to a great number of warts 
on the language (such as delete vs delete[], & references vs && references, 
undefined behavior with non-virtual destructors in some cases, that static 
initializations aren't done in a reliable order, etc.). I can understand 
these warts, because they're focussed on performance and/or make the 
compiler writer's job easier (and hence make the language easier to 
implement and port).

The syntax also sucks, to a great extent due to the lame attempt to remain 
compatible with a different language they're already incompatible with. Had 
every C program actually been a valid C++ program with the same semantics, 
this might have made sense, but they failed to ensure this too.

I think the fact that I came to different conclusions than you do don't make 
it prejudice. I'm willing to learn, but if you can't tell me where I'm 
wrong, then telling me I'm bashing based on prejudice doesn't help.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message