2009/9/17 Bas Wijnen <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:56:53AM +0530, arnuld uttre wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Bas Wijnen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:30:08PM +0530, arnuld uttre wrote: >> >> > ... SNIP... >> > Anyway, it historically makes sense that a language evolves with >> > hardware. And C, even if it still has the same name, has evolved a bit >> > as well. The real evolution is of course in the step to C++, where it >> > really becomes a different language (if you want to use it that way). >> >> I really don't consider C++ a really technically sane evolution. > > Evolution doesn't need to be technically sane. ;-) I don't consider the > fact that x86 came out as the 'survivor' to be technically sane either, > but it happened nonetheless. > > However, I disagree with you about C++. It is a very nice language IMO, > which only misses a few features. Python has those features, but misses > other things. Ah well... > >> Right, and I am not genius. are you ? > > I don't think so. That's why I'm saying it's not a good idea to design > a new language before working further on the Hurd. > >> I am not influenced by either RMS or Linus's opinions, I like neither >> C nor C++. > > Oh I'm sure you are influenced by (almost) any opinion you hear. You > don't have to agree with it all, but it does change your view a tiny > little bit. > > Not liking C and C++ is of course possible and acceptable, regardless of > what was the main influence for that opinion. :-) > >> Unlike C, C++ is clumsy and full of monstrous ad-hoc complexity. > > Is it? Not if you use it right, IMO. But we could of course have a > different view of what is "monstrous". > > I think that C++ is in fact much cleaner than C. The language may not > be so complex, but that means that the constructs you need to get > something done are much more monstrous than what you would need in C++. > >> Problem with C is its not very expressive, the point I like very much >> about C is its size. You can do big things with such a small language. > > You can, but you need to think of technical details all the time. > That's what I meant when talking about the problem with C that you don't > see while using it: you need to be constantly aware of lots of things, > and that keeps your mind from the actual problems you're trying to > solve.
It's the same with C++. It allows for many things some of which I would consider monstrous. Whlie you can write nice code with it, much nicer than with C alone you still need to be aware of how things work internally. That's the basic thing in which C++ did not manage to step away form C, and that's probably also the thing that makes it possible to write a kernel in C++. Thanks Michal
