Re: [OT] Re: C++ *for Git*

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 9/23/07, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
> >>

Well, according to your reasoning assembly should be the gotha of
elite programmers, only very disciplined and meticulous programmers
survive, much more then in C.

Is this a good way to measure a language?

>
> C++ is good for creating black boxes.

Object oriented languages creates black boxes: that's the reason why
object oriented exsists and also the reason why Linus hates it ;-)

Difference between C++ and other OO languages is mostly in the size of
the applications written in that language IMHO.

C++ noramlly has the bigger code bases, so problem you mention are
enanched and perhaps seem to depend on the language itself not on the
size of application. IOW a Python (Ruby) app probably does not have
the size of Firefox or Open Office, this _could_ induce the naive idea
that the python app is cleaner or easier to understand just becasue of
Python vc C++.

I really don't think so. I think this could be true for toy problems,
but for real, for big applications is the design of the appllcation,
not the language, that at 90% state the difference between clean and
crap.

>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.

I really agree here. The biggset downside of OO is that for it to work
you should have a much deeper knowledge of the problem you want to
handle. OO force you to analyze more and know more because a bad
design normally means throwing everything in the trash can and start
again.

Procedural programming as C is more immune to this 'good problem
analysis'  dependency.

Marco
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux