Re: OT: C++, yuck!

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 01:19:22 (-0800), Thomas S. Urban wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: OT:  C++, yuck!
>
> Ok, this is way off topic, but I'm curious what you think the bad
> features of C++ are?  I keep reading how bad you think it is, but not
> really why?  And I mean the langauge, not portability - I talk about
> that a bit later.

I don't really have time to get into a detailed discussion, and
certainly not in this forum!  ;-)

I recommend you read the published articles, papers, and such that
describe problems with C++ -- for the most part they've only confirmed
what I knew intuitively from studying the language directly.

Alan Kay's comment about OO vs. C++ sums it all up rather nicely though.

> > > *Every* language has problems.  There is no panacea.
> > 
> > I couldn't agree more!  C++ just has more than its fair share of
> > problems.  ;-)
> 
> How do you figure?  C has 6 problems and C++ has 6 + 4, therefore it has
> more?

Well it's more like C has N problems, C++ has (N - (N / Y) + M) problems
where (M > (N - (N / Y)) and maybe even (Y > N) just for good measure.   :-)

> There are a couple features, like operator overloading, that
> I think would have been better left out of the langauge, but even those
> can be fine if used with restraint.

You see that's a very perfect example of a fundamental flaw with the
very idea of a language like C++ (or Java or C# or any other attempt to
describe a half-baked Modula-style language as "object oriented").
Operator overloading should not be an issue -- it must be a very natural
and inherent part of any OO language.  Look at the very invention of the
concept in Smalltalk to see why.

> In short, C++ is a good langauge if your developers know how to use it,

Mabye -- but y'all would be much more productive and useful to society
if you'd try to forget C++ and everything you know about it (right after
you've re-written all your code in some more cost effective language, of
course!).

> > If you can't justify using C for a project (on language merits alone)
> > then C++ is right out of the running from the get go!
> 
> That is silly.  What if you could justify C, except you need dynamic
> binding too? Then could you justify C++?  What about you need all the
> features of C, with generic programming as well?  Then is C++ back in
> the running?

"dynamic binding" isn't a feature you could ever possibly decide on
needing up front for any kind of project you'd ever even get close to
justifying C for!  Get real!

-- 
                                                                Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <address@hidden>;  <address@hidden>;  <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>