From: Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
begin quoting Gabriel Sechan as of Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 05:36:16PM -0500:
[snip]
> Bullshit. High level languages don't simplify code, they complicate it.
> Inheretence, exceptions, templating, etc are all far more complicated to
> understand than simple procedural code.
I'm getting the impression that you might think that C++ is a high-level
language. If that's the case... it ain't.
Yes, it is. So is C, for that matter. Anything above assembly is a high
level language. The correct term for Java, Python, and its ilk is "4GL"-
fourth generation language.
> Only in rare occasions does
this
> complication actually come with a commesurate performance increase. You
You're speaking of "developer performance increase", yes?
I concur that C++ slows down development. (And J2EE too, for that matter.)
Yes, in this case I was speaking of developer performace.
> may end up doing more per line, but that does not mean simplification-
it
> means more points of failure and more difficulty debugging.
If you're talking about C++, I agree.
However, C++ is _not_ a good representative of a high-level language, or
even of an OO language.
C++ is a perfectly fine example of a high level language. As for the OO
snipe- face it pure OO languages lost for a reason- OO just isn't that
useful. The reality is that OO was not the silver bullet everyone claimed.
It has its uses, but 99% of the benefit came from encapsulation- something
good designers were doing a decade before OOP.
Gabe
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
