On Thursday, 16 November 2017 at 06:35:30 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grostad wrote:
No, classes is a powerful modelling primitive. C++ got that
right. C++ is also fairly uniform because of it.
Yes, I agree that classes are a powerful modelling primitive, but
my point was that Stroustrup made classes the 'primary focus of
program design'. Yes, that made it more uniform alright...
uniformly more complicated. And why? Because he went on to throw
C into the mix, because performance in Simula was so poor, and
would not scale. C promised the efficiency and scalability he was
after. But an efficient and scalable 'class oriented' language,
means complexity was inevitable.
It wasn't a bad decision on his part. It was right for the time I
guess. But it set the stage for its demise I believe.
People who harp about how OO is a failure don't know how to do
real world modelling...
I would never say OO itself is a failure. But the idea that is
should be the 'primary focus of program design' .. I think that
is a failure...and I think that principle is generally accepted
these days.
I have to wonder whether that conclusion sparked the
inevitable demise of C++.
There is no demise...
If the next C++ doesn't get modules, that'll be the end of
it...for sure.
Eric should be asking a similar question about Go ..what
decision has been made that sparked Go's inevitable demise -
or in the case of Go, decision would be decisions.
Go is growing...
Yeah..but into what? It's all those furry gopher toys, t-shirts,
and playful colors.. I think that's what's attracting people to
Go. Google is the master of advertising afterall. Would work well
in a kindergarten. But it makes me want to puke. It's so fake.
a := b
A practical shorthand, if you dont like it, then dont use it.
Was just a senseless, unnecessary change. The immediate
impression I got, was that they were trying to undo a decision,
that was made when B was developed, rather doing it because it
really assisted the modern programmer (what language uses that?
None that I use that's for sure). And I get that feeling about
other decisions they've made...as if they are just trying to
correct the past. They should be focused on the future. They
should have got some experienced younger programmers at google to
design a language instead. I bet it wouldn't look anything like
Go.
