[NTLUG:Discuss] Evil C++ (was Re: Evil GCC-2.96)

[Will Senn]

Richard bled anti C++ propaganda for a while:

WARNING: technical discussion of various language details ahead.  Those of
you not interested in this may wish to skip ahead to the next message now.

(sic)

Therefore, the fact that C++ is immensely popular says NOT ONE THING about
the quality of the language design, the quality of the language definition,
or the quality of the implementations.

---------------------------------------

Richard,
Dude, get a grip.  C++ has its place in the pantheon of available languages
and it's a prominent place - get over it...

Your technical discussion was not terribly technical, I could blather on in
a similar vein for days, to what end?  It is obvious from the discussion
that you are an isolated programmer, who has not been part of a large
project.  Your discussion rings of a language purist perspective and
conveniently ignores issues of length of the dev cycle, system complexity,
maintenance, etc.

Sure, there are plenty of languages around that are "better", but of the
ones
that the average programmer can grasp, has access to, and can get support
for,
C++ is a really good language for system architects.  The architect can
easily design a system and implement the system by assigning specific
responsibilities to individual programmers, without micromanaging the
process.
Each programmer's area of responsibility is clearly definable and can be
isolated and more easily managed than in other traditional venues.

One last note, I wouldn't wanna write no stinkin' gps time synchronization
smtpe/irig-b decoder routine in C++! - That'd be STUPID!  On the other
hand, I wouldn't wanna write no stinkin' transactional POS system in C,
for the same reason.

Later,

Will