Hiring managers should look on them with suspicion, he suggested. In spite of his weasel words about "human betterment", I find this to be little more than an expression of prejudice about C/C++ programmers, and I find it unethical in the extreme.
Isn't this a scream? I enjoy seeing OO industry figureheads' true views exposed.
Yes, we've learned from OO. (Although it's instructive to note how many practices existed well before OO's time, but which OO claims as its own invention.) But when blowhard Meyer's silly rules would keep you from hiring Donald E. Knuth (who loves C), something is really wrong.
Meyer's counter-response about C "not being suitable for large, flexible, extensible systems" doesn't seem to explain why virtually all mainstream operating systems are written in this language. Are the world's finest engineers really so stupid, or is there something to C's success? Meyer vaguely alludes to there being something rather positive about C, but he drops the topic like a hot potato.
Why is this ridiculous viewpoint advanced at all? Because the minute they admit that OO isn't always the best idea, they lose a little power to scare managers into mandating OO training courses, books, materials, consulting, etc. Those fees are the real reason for the existence of OO per se; virtually none of the techniques are new.
Meyer also suffers from overidentification of design philosophies with individual languages. Only dead languages have this luxury. That's why it's so funny that he mentions Modula and Pascal as languages supposedly less vulnerable to "C hacker syndrome." So we're going to put out ads for Modula-3 people now?
My friend bought an Abit dual-cpu motherboard, and runs the Gentus distribution. He recompiled his kernel this week. How did he do that without the source, hmmmm?
I think people are not looking into this before they talk.
Minor correction:-)... we're not "desperate" for coders, though we are definitely interested in talking to people who can develop DSP plugins. There is a mailing list for developers; see the octal page for more details.
Cubase VST, and the SDK is available. The interface has a small C++ class library to wrap it; if a compatible API could be written, a lot of plug-ins could be ported.
There is an emerging soft-rt plugin standard being developed at GNU. Please check out http://www.gnu.org/software/octal
In other words you still haven't told me about a "Procedural Language" (OOP or non-OOP), other than Python, that supports Tuples as first order constructs.
Try C's "struct" keyword, or if you want it to be a little nicer, full classes in C++ ( if for nothing more than operator overloading.) If you really are talking about tuples in the mathematical sense, I think "struct" fits the bill. It just doesn't generally look like a tuple unless you are initializing it. C++ can fix this by overloading the function call operator.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this a scream? I enjoy seeing OO industry figureheads' true views exposed.
Yes, we've learned from OO. (Although it's instructive to note how many practices existed well before OO's time, but which OO claims as its own invention.) But when blowhard Meyer's silly rules would keep you from hiring Donald E. Knuth (who loves C), something is really wrong.
Meyer's counter-response about C "not being suitable for large, flexible, extensible systems" doesn't seem to explain why virtually all mainstream operating systems are written in this language. Are the world's finest engineers really so stupid, or is there something to C's success? Meyer vaguely alludes to there being something rather positive about C, but he drops the topic like a hot potato.
Why is this ridiculous viewpoint advanced at all? Because the minute they admit that OO isn't always the best idea, they lose a little power to scare managers into mandating OO training courses, books, materials, consulting, etc. Those fees are the real reason for the existence of OO per se; virtually none of the techniques are new.
Meyer also suffers from overidentification of design philosophies with individual languages. Only dead languages have this luxury. That's why it's so funny that he mentions Modula and Pascal as languages supposedly less vulnerable to "C hacker syndrome." So we're going to put out ads for Modula-3 people now?
My friend bought an Abit dual-cpu motherboard, and runs the Gentus distribution. He recompiled his kernel this week. How did he do that without the source, hmmmm?
I think people are not looking into this before they talk.
There is a project at GNU to develop a Buzz-like tracker. It's moving along well and should be usable within a few months.
check The OCTAL Home page at GNU.ORG
Minor correction :-) ... we're not "desperate" for coders, though we are definitely interested in talking to people who can develop DSP plugins. There is a mailing list for developers; see the octal page for more details.
Try C's "struct" keyword, or if you want it to be a little nicer, full classes in C++ ( if for nothing more than operator overloading.) If you really are talking about tuples in the mathematical sense, I think "struct" fits the bill. It just doesn't generally look like a tuple unless you are initializing it. C++ can fix this by overloading the function call operator.
In any case the difference is syntactic.
Perhaps you would prefer the Windows family of Object-Oriented operating systems?