On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 23:01, Ken Foskey wrote: > On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 22:02, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > > > That is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. The > > opening sentence "We want to make our programs easy to write, correct, > > maintainable and acceptably efficient." from the main architect of > > C++. The irony is astounding. > > The art of unix programming has a bit to say about OOo and programming > in general. Should be required reading for ALL programmers, Joel on > software agrees and he is die hard Windows... > > http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/
What he says is interesting, but I'm not persuaded. He cites bad programming style as bad things about C++. I've seen awful C over the years. And nearly every C program I've seen that does any runtime parameterisation does so by manually implementing C++ elements such as vtables, per structure/type memory allocation and so forth. Yes, it's easy to write horrendous, spaghetti, layered without value, with vicious inheritance trees. It's equally easy to write C in bad form, with parameters lists as long as your arm, and so deeply indented loops or conditionals you start typeing at column 50. Writing excellent code - in any language - requires knowledge, skill and practice. Conversely, nearly any language can have excellent code written in it (brainfuck being the obvious exception :}). The principals that ESR promotes - of transparency, orthogonality & encapsulation - are useful anywhere. OO can be percieved as making a religion out of one aspect of that - but that is not an accurate summation of what OO languages are about. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
