That seems to have been written by a Java advocate considering most of the complaints have been "solved" by Java. But then Java went and gave us check exceptions!
On 19/09/2012, at 9:52 PM, Thomas Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
