On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:58 AM, torbenh <[email protected]> wrote: > well... for me, saying c++, is saying boost. boost and modern c++ is what > makes c++ better than java. > java is a pretty great language nowadays (with generics and annotators > and stuff). my big problem with java is that its stdlib is really a big mess.
I always thought the big chunk of new stuff added in Java 1.5 was a really bad idea. That took a compact, comprehensible language that lacked a number of convenient features but at least had a single "school of practice", and gave it the capacity for the same sort of fragmentation as you have in C++. But I haven't done Java development in earnest since that stuff became widespread, so I don't know whether that's really happened in practice. Reading a language is (for most projects) more important than writing it. You yourself took the jackdmp code (in C++) and ported it back to good old C because it was written "from the wrong school of C++" and you found C easier to work with. Jackdmp is not exactly weird code -- it's written rather like pre-1.5 Java -- but its C++ is just not the same C++ as you use. Similarly, for someone like me who has used Qt for many years, Boost has always seemed largely superfluous and the language that for you "is C++" is for me something a little bit alien. Is it possible to write C++ in such a way that every competent C++ developer is happy to work with the results without some sort of re-education? Chris _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
