Was Linus Torvalds Right About C++ Being So Wrong?
Nerval's Lobster writes: Perhaps the most famous rant against C++ came from none other than Linus Torvalds in 2007. "C++ is a horrible language," he wrote, for starters. "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." He's not alone: A lot of developers dislike how much C++ can do "behind the scenes" with STL and Boost, leading to potential instability and inefficiency. And yet there's still demand for C++ out there. Over at Dice, Jeff Cogswell argues that C++ doesn't deserve the hatred. "I've witnessed a lot of 'over-engineering' in my life, wherein people would write reusable classes with several layers of inheritance, even though the reusable class wasn't actually used more than once," he wrote. "But I would argue that's the exception, not the norm; when done right, generic programming and other high-level aspects of C++ can provide enormous benefits." Was Linus going overboard?
What comes next, a thread on "is Emacs better than Vi"?
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
You're all talking about C++ and not LINUS TORVALDS! Have you all LOST your MINDS!? ;-)
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The(nice(thing(about(Lisp(is(I(don't(have(to(use(it))))))))))).
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Vala is surely the most ironic language yet.
GObject: because we don't want to use a whole new programming language just to add objects to C.
Vala: because GObject is better approached using a whole new programming language.