Linked by MOS6510 on Thu 10th Jan 2013 23:25 UTC
General Development "For years I've tried my damnedest to get away from C. Too simple, too many details to manage, too old and crufty, too low level. I've had intense and torrid love affairs with Java, C++, and Erlang. I've built things I'm proud of with all of them, and yet each has broken my heart. They've made promises they couldn't keep, created cultures that focus on the wrong things, and made devastating tradeoffs that eventually make you suffer painfully. And I keep crawling back to C."
Thread beginning with comment 548291
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: spot on
by tylerdurden on Fri 11th Jan 2013 01:00 UTC in reply to "spot on"
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

In my experience it is the opposite; C++ deters people from proper object orientation. IMO, C++ is such a syntactical kludge that plenty of programmers I have worked with revert to procedural thinking inadvertently when coding in it.

I don't think the object orientation is what makes large C++ projects hard to maintain.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: spot on
by kwan_e on Fri 11th Jan 2013 01:10 in reply to "RE: spot on"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

IMO, C++ is such a syntactical kludge that plenty of programmers I have worked with revert to procedural thinking inadvertently when coding in it.


Despite my C++ apologetics, I have to agree with the part about reverting to procedural thinking. However, this kind of thing is implied in Bjarne Stroustrup's book.

Some things are just not suited to an OO style. I find OO best suited for defining ADTs. Frameworks should be a mixture of procedures and ADTs, not large object systems.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: spot on
by phoudoin on Fri 11th Jan 2013 13:03 in reply to "RE: spot on"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

I don't think the object orientation is what makes large C++ projects hard to maintain.


Nope.
It's simply their size.

Reply Parent Score: 5