To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
There exists other languages that promote complexity much more than C++. eg, Java and C, IRONICALLY. But what makes your arguments irrational are your supporting arguments. It's not irrational to argue against complexity, but it is irrational to bring up irrelevant and downright unsafe practices as proof of a language's unnecessary complexity.
If I may remind you, you plainly stated that it was preferable (to you) to risk buffer overruns with array management than using slightly more complex but safer features of a language.
That is highly irrational.
It has everything to do with irony. I just looked up a couple of explanations of the concept "situational irony". This situation fits, and even more so with your involvement.
There exists other languages that promote complexity much more than C++. eg, Java and C, IRONICALLY. But what makes your arguments irrational are your supporting arguments. It's not irrational to argue against complexity, but it is irrational to bring up irrelevant and downright unsafe practices as proof of a language's unnecessary complexity. "
I don't know - Java does encourage over-design, but C++ encourages nigh-unreadable template fun and magical mystery action-at-a-distance.
Of course, C++ in the right hands is fine, and it does also depend on what you're coding against (Qt code tends to look good to me), and dash of C++ can remove a lot of pain from a C project.
If I may remind you, I plainly stated that there is no risk of buffer overflows if you follow correct practices. At no point in time did I encourage unsafe practices. I spelled out for you exactly what must be done. And even with that in mind, it is not only simpler to do it my way but it also produces easier to read and understand code.
You've obviously found poor references for irony. There's simply no expectation that a C project would not be compiled with a compiler written in C++. Thus there cannot be any irony when it happens (and it happens all the time, further removing it from the realm of irony.)
Similarly, my participation is not ironic because there's no basis to expect that I wouldn't participate in correcting a misuse of an overly misused word.





Member since:
2010-03-11
Irrational? Hardly. My argument against C++ is/was always about complexity.
Regardless of your views on my views, my participation has nothing to do with irony. I was merely correcting your misuse of the word.