Hi, On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 06:26:10PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> 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). Unfortunately, in spite of the name and resulting general perception, C++ can not really be considered an evolution of C. While it adds a couple of useful features, and a couple of features considered useful by some, it also takes away an essential feature of C -- its elegance. > Of course Richard Stallman is a known hater of C++. He has a point > that everybody knows C, so using that makes the code readable for > everyone. [...] IMO his love for C is unreasonable. Richard Stallman is not a C++ hater, and certainly not a C lover. As you said yourself, his decision to use C for GNU was purely pragmatic. His actual love is Lisp. If you want to cite an actual known C++ hater, take Linus Torvalds. I must say that I fully agree with him on this. His argument makes perfect sense: > C may still be useful in some places, but not in big projects. Neither is C++ suitable for big projects. Linus' argument is that for the kind of low-level code where C is useful, C++ doesn't offer any advantages; only problems. While for the kind of code where a higher-level language is more useful, you better use a true high-level language. C++ is neither here nor there. > However, our main interest is not that everyone can read our code. Free software is about enabling people to understand and adapt the software. An obscure language is a major obstacle. -antrik-
