On 9/6/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Dmitry Kakurin wrote: > > > > When I first looked at Git source code two things struck me as odd: > > 1. Pure C as opposed to C++. No idea why. Please don't talk about portability, > > it's BS. > > *YOU* are full of bullshit. nice > C++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot > of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much > easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if > the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out, > that in itself would be a huge reason to use C. > > In other words: the choice of C is the only sane choice. I know Miles > Bader jokingly said "to piss you off", but it's actually true. I've come > to the conclusion that any programmer that would prefer the project to be > in C++ over C is likely a programmer that I really *would* prefer to piss > off, so that he doesn't come and screw up any project I'm involved with. As dinosaurs (who code exclusively in C) are becoming extinct, you will soon find yourself alone with attitude like this. Measuring number of people who contributed to Git is incorrect metric. Obviously C++ developers can contribute C code. But assuming that they prefer it that way is wrong. I was coding in Assembly when there was no C. Then in C before C++ was created. Now days it's C++ and C#, and I have never looked back. Bad developers will write bad code in any language. But penalizing good developers for this illusive reason of repealing bad contributors is nonsense. Anyway I don't mean to start a religious C vs. C++ war. It's a matter of beliefs and as such pointless. I just wanted to get a sense of how many people share this "Git should be in pure C" doctrine. -- - Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
