Warp wrote:
>   You are really beating a dead horse. Every single problem with C++ which
> people try to think good solutions for is something which makes the language
> "wrong", while you seldom seem to show the same type of attitude towards
> other programming languages and their problems.

My complaint in this case (which I guess I didn't make clear) is that C++ 
has some underlying infrastructural problems (like the model for separate 
compilation, memory management, not paying for what you don't use, etc) that 
people keep trying to "fix" with patches on top. They don't fix the 
underlying problems.  *That* is the main thing I dislike about C++ - that 
the language is complex and baroque almost beyond comprehension due to piles 
and piles of fixes for things that wouldn't be a problem without some of the 
other fundamental assumptions.

Note that I'm not saying it's even the wrong choice. I just said "that's why 
*I* think the design is wrong."  It's a pile of successive kludgey patches 
on a language (C) that had a nice clean design. Once you start with the 
assumption that it has to look and work significantly like C does, and then 
you want to add a bunch of features completely outside the scope of C while 
minimizing syntactic disruption as well, you're going to get a kludgey 
language.  Just like once you decide you can't change the JVM, stuff like 
generics and J2EE become kludges too.

>   For example, I don't ever remember you making a post saying "a wonderful
> example of what I think is wrong with the whole Haskell language", and then
> proceed to mention one single problem for which someone suggests a solution
> for.

I don't know Haskell that well. I say that stuff about Ada and Erlang and 
Eiffel and a couple other languages I've used and found lacking in various 
ways, yes. I think I've harshed on PHP as well. (Hmm. Maybe most of that 
hasn't been here, because I don't think there's anyone here using Ada or 
Erlang frequently enough to tell me the error of my ways.) Or maybe you 
don't remember me doing that as clearly.

Plus, C++ is the only language where I'm likely to have to learn some 
baroque broken piece of code and fix it in my future career. Perl is 
hopelessly f'ed in my eyes too, but I don't need to know how it works, so I 
can just look at it and say "huh, that sucks. Good think I don't know anyone 
who disagrees enough to hire me to work with it."

>   I know I'm being paranoid once again, but I just can't help to feel that
> you *are* biased. It just feels that you are looking at C++ through
> different glasses than you look at other languages, and any problem in
> C++ always automatically makes the language "wrong", while problems in
> other languages don't.

I think it's the growth model for C++ that's bad. I just have to laugh when 
I see people trying to build elegant structures on top of sand. I mean, sand 
makes a nice beach, but it's a lousy thing to build an office building on 
top of.

>   Even if you do agree that other languages do have their problems and
> people thinking about clever solutions to those problems, C++ seems to be
> the only language which ever makes you post new threads here.

Nah.  C++ is the language that I post things like "this demonstrates 
fundamental flaws in the language" threads. I post other language threads 
not infrequently. It's true I probably harsh on other languages more in 
*response* to threads. I usually don't initiate them.

I also harsh on business models and operating systems, if you'll notice. :-)

>   Call me paranoid if you wish, but I really wonder if you would be making
> these posts if I had never written a single word about C++.

No, I'd probably still be harshing C++. The only difference is that I 
wouldn't be seeing the *good* side of it from you. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message