Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   OTOH, what's the point in a "hey, look at yet another new flaw I found
>>> in thing X, which is why I hate it even more" post, 
> 
>> Good thing that wasn't what the post or the link said, then.
> 
>   Then exactly what does "a wonderful example of what I think is wrong with
> the whole C++ language/library design methodology" mean, if it's not pointing
> a flaw in the C++ language/library design methodology?

Well, it's not a flaw in C++. It's a flaw in the design methodology. The 
same design methodology is used in any number of places, including HTTP 
(which I've griped here about before), HTML (which I've griped here about 
before), Perl, Windows (which I've acknowledged here before), and Linux 
(which I've acknowledged here before).

If you want to support the position that applying incremental unrelated 
patches to a infrastructural system in order to fix one flaw at a time is 
better than designing the thing up front to do what you need or at least be 
cleanly extendable, I'd be interested in hearing that argument.

-- 
   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