On 07/16/2014 01:22 PM, Remo wrote:
On Monday, 14 July 2014 at 23:43:57 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:22:53PM +0000, John Carter via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
Any other good blog posts / social media comments / pointers I can
digest and use?
This one came to mind:
http://bartoszmilewski.com/2013/09/19/edward-chands/
This is pretty bad promotion for Haskell.
The Author of this post apparently do not know C++ well enough
or just ignore this knowledge.
That would be somewhat curious.
http://www.amazon.com/In-Action-Industrial-Programming-Techniques/dp/0201699486
In any case, personal attacks are irrelevant and do not belong here.
There are less intrusive ways of formulating this thought.
Me as a C++ developer who likes Haskell (and D) after reading this I
like C++ a bit more and Haskell a bit less.
...
You are entitled to your opinion, but I'll still point out that taking
disagreement with some piece of writing as evidence for the (assumed!)
contrary is not a valid way of building a well-reasoned one.
It’s a common but false belief that reference counting (using shared
pointers in particular) is better than garbage collection.
And then he pointed to a "A Unified Theory of Garbage Collection" paper
where "reference counting" as a strategy (method) for a Garbage
Collection will be disused.
This is NOT the same as std::shared_ptr do !
...
This seems a little bit superficial; what would be a _rebuttal_ of his
fundamental point?
