About C++: http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/defective.html
Regards, Thomas Berg _______________________________________________________ Thomas Berg Specialist AM/SM&S SWEDBANK AB (publ) > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] > För David Crayford > Skickat: den 19 september 2012 12:07 > Till: [email protected] > Ämne: Re: Strings > > There is no doubt that C++ can be a fiendishly complex language, but it > can also be quite straight forward if you lay down some standards. Of > course we've all heard the horror stories about using operator > overloading to open a socket or implementing a simple algorithm using > template meta-programming. > > C++ is a multi-paradigm language and the fact you choose to code > imperative style code but benefit from the more rigorous type checking > of the C++ compiler reinforces my point. You don't pay for what you > don't use but enjoy warm fuzzy feelings that the compiler will catch > bugs before your customers. Cheaper for both of you! > > I'm no language bigot but IMO C++ is the most powerful, feature rich > compiler available on z. To be honest I would probably be more > productive using one of those new dynamically typed scripting languages > but we can't have it all. > > > On 18/09/2012, at 11:14 PM, Kirk Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Linus has his reasons, some of which are actually technical and > relate > > to the unique requirements of the Linux kernel. > > > > Have you written at least a few hundred klocs in both C and C++? I'm > > sure that David has and I agree with his statements 100%, perhaps > with > > one caveat - C++ is a much bigger language: the more complicated > features like > > templates can be complicated to use and we tend to mostly avoid them. > Our > > C++ code looks mostly like C with judicious use of classes, RAII, > > exceptions, etc. > > > > Kirk Wolf > > Dovetailed Technologies > > http://dovetail.com > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Shane Ginnane <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:40:11 +0800, David Crayford wrote: > >> > >>> In fact, I find it difficult to fathom why anybody would still > write > >>> C code when C++ is such a superior language. > >> > >> I seem to recall some fella named Torvalds having his say about this > >> a few years ago. > >> People (no, not Dave) keep coming up with a plaintive "why ain't the > >> kernel written in C++ ... ?" > >> > >> Comes back to the old adage of "right tool for the job". > >> > >> Shane ... > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > >> - For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO > >> IBM-MAIN > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
