David Brown <git@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 04:09:51AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: >>On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 12:50:00AM +0200, Alex Unleashed wrote: >>> I'd say being forced to be explicit is a good thing here, so that the >>> programmer at least has some sort of good understanding of what is >>> going on, and chances are that if he doesn't really know, things just >>> won't work out (quite unlike a lot of other languages where this >>> programmer might actually end up with something half-assed that >>> "mostly" works). >>> For some reason it seems to me a lot harder to find bad programmers >>> surviving using C than a lot of the other languages. >> >>Idiot-proofness-by-complexity is a myth IMHO. Idiots can be quite >>persistent... > > I work with plenty of them :-) It's all C. All of the same things > happen, with management looking for magic bullets to solve problems > caused by bad programmers. C++ is good for creating black boxes. A black box that has been fitted into its environment and that has good innards is fine. A black box with rotten innards, or not really being well-suited for the job at hand, isn't. For a project where people come and go, black boxes might hide a lot about bad design and implementation. In particular, changing an algorithm to require different black boxes is something that is very unpleasant to do. Having everything in the open is an advantage as long as the complexity to be managed is at a reasonable level. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum - 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
