begin quoting Gabriel Sechan as of Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 06:13:32PM -0500: > >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.
"Higher than assembly" does not mean "high level language". My house may be higher than Joe's house, but that doesn't mean I live on top of the hill instead of the bottom. [snip] > >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. I disagree, but I don't think we're going to convince each other about the innate rightness of our respective viewpoints. The point is: don't piss all over high-level languages using C++ as an example. (The same with OO.) In fact, just about any feature that C++ has should be evaluated independently of C++, as C++ taints everything with undue complexity. (I should probably stop bad-mouthing operator overloading based on my experience with it in C++...) > 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. Who is this "everyone"? *Nothing* is a silver bullet. There is no universal best language for all problems, large and small. The folks who claimed that OO was a silver bullet are now off proclaiming that something else will Solve All Our Problems. Pundits get paid to identify the next silver bullet. If they're right, great, but they get paid even if they're wrong. They don't get paid if they fail to make Great Pronouncements. So it's best to ignore all the "silver bullet" rhetoric as much as possible. > It has its uses, but 99% of the benefit came from encapsulation- something > good designers were doing a decade before OOP. Yes. It's an incremental improvement in technique. The underlying issues are still the same: modularize functionality, decrease coupling, increase cohesion, and manage complexity. And, of course, picking good names and defining your data structures. -- _ |\_ \| -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
