On 02/25/2010 02:02 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> One of the better ones I've seen.
>
>> http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/writing_rant.html
>
>    It's funny how everybody keeps repeating the same mantras about C++,
> yet I don't experience them myself. It must be a different C++.
>

I imagine a large part of the difference if that you've learned a set of 
programming techniques in C++ which go a long way in avoiding these 
problems.  If, however, one hasn't programmed in C++ enough to make 
these things second nature then I think that it is indeed a relatively 
perilous language since part of its design philosophy is not to waste 
resources protecting you from yourself unless you explicitly ask for it. 
  In fact, I'd wager that some of the programming techniques which you 
use in C++ are exactly the sort of things that a higher-level language 
would do for you automatically (memory management, bounds checking, 
etc.), but which you had to learn/be told to do in C++.  Granted I 
rather like this design philosophy, but it took some work before I could 
program in C++ without being frustrated.

Also, his quip about cryptic compile-time error messages is definitely 
justified IMHO (at least as far as g++ goes).

Post a reply to this message