On 05/23/2010 10:22 PM, Chris Cannam wrote: [...]
> ... by which I don't mean to imply that I can't understand it > (although, with C++, there is always the possibility that I _think_ I > can understand it but am sadly mistaken because of some weird shit > happening behind the scenes). I just mean that I can't simply read > it. I once read a great (and funny) article arguing that you simple can't assume anything about what the following means in C++: a = b + c Nothing > This may be one really serious advantage for the everything-in-C types > -- a competent C programmer can understand any C, whereas C++ is big > enough to have many different "schools of C++" which are mutually > unintelligible without further study. > > That's also the seed of its popularity, I suppose -- everyone can > write the way they like in it, and if you can't work out how to do it > properly, you can always drop back into C. Yeah, C rocks :-) But, the problem is that, in my experience, C++ can increase productivity by a factor of x10 or so over C. It's my personal experience. Very often, I have to consider making a choice between the two, and I often end up coding the engine in C and the rest in C++ or a dynamic language. But maybe that, with experience and methodology, one can get as productive in C as in C++? I suppose the guys at Gnome would agree with that.. -- Olivier _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
