Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 15th Jul 2006 22:45 UTC
.NET (dotGNU too) Jeff Cogswell writes: "I'm about to make a confession. Even though I've written several books and articles about C++, I have a secret: C++ isn't my favorite language. I have lots of languages that I use, each one for different purposes. But the language I consider my all-time favorite is Python."
Thread beginning with comment 143652
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Python is . . .
by rayiner on Sun 16th Jul 2006 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Python is . . ."
Member since:

Yes, the ability to construct poor sentences does not imply a poor language, but that does not mean that some languages aren't less amenable to clear-code than others.

Idiomatic modern C++ is quite hard to read. The choice of template argument delimeters as well as the choice of scoping delimeter break up the flow of the text, to a much greater extent than does the less obtrusive delimiters in Java. The convention of discouraging 'using' statements doesn't help much. Even simple C constructs like loops blow up to absurd sizes in C++ code. Look through code that uses Boost or Loki sometimes. These libraries are written by good C++ programmers, even some experts in the field, and their readability is still sub-par.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Python is . . .
by Cloudy on Mon 17th Jul 2006 01:28 in reply to "RE[5]: Python is . . ."
Cloudy Member since:

I have to agree about templates. But then, the existance of templates in C++ is a hack to overcome a deficiency in the original language.

One can make a strong case that poor syntax in a language is usually evidence for poor design in that language, and C++ certainly suffers from plenty of poor design.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Python is . . .
by rayiner on Mon 17th Jul 2006 02:41 in reply to "RE[6]: Python is . . ."
rayiner Member since:

I'll agree with you on that, and further assert that an excess of syntax, as is seen in C++ and Perl, is a likely a sign of insufficiently powerful primitives in the core language.

Reply Parent Score: 1