Newsgroup: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ == Gagware?
From: James Kanze <james.kanze@...>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
On Thursday, 8 July 1993 11:34:36 UTC+1, Jordan A. Bortz wrote:
> So I say -- you guys use it -- do you like it?
Not really, but I like most of the alternatives less.
> Is it productive?
Very.
> Can you read the code 6 months after you write it?
More so than in most languages. C++ is very expressive, which
means 1) it's simple to obfuscate, but 2) if you use it
correctly, the results are very readable. (More so, for
example, than Java.)
> Is it robust?
That is, I find, its strong point.
> Does it crash all the time?
No.
> Would you like a differnt
> object oriented c if it existed?
You mean like Objective-C? I've never actually tried it, but
from what little I saw, it doesn't tempt me.
> What about Smalltalk?
Not for the type of work I do. My applications have to work,
reliably, and (at least at present), they have to be fast.
> What do you use it for?
For a lot of things. In the past, I've mostly worked on large
scale servers, but I've done a complex order tracking system in
it, and I'm currently using it for numerically intensive
financial software.
> P.S. My personal feeling is, that for form based applications,
> you'd be better off with Smalltalk...
I don't know about Smalltalk, but for the user interface
front-end, you usually would be better off with a more dynamic
language. The code is normally very simple, with no real fixed
requirements (or they are constantly changing), and it doesn't
have to be very robust. In that context, I'll usually use
Python, rather than C++.
C++ shines (relative to the alternatives, at least) in larger
applications, where maintenance and robustness are critical.
> But there still is a need
> for C based Objects for device drivers, critical code, etc.
> But I think that those object-c programs need to be writable,
> readable, reusable, and maintainable, and I don't feel that C++ has any
> of those attributes.....despite being the "standard"
What you "feel" doesn't correspond with the reality of the
situation. C++ beats most of the languages out there for
readability, reusability and maintainability. (I've never used
modern Ada, but from what I hear, it's also very good in this
regard. Modula-3 was great, back then, but it hasn't evolved,
and it suffers from a serious lack of support.)
When it comes down to it, there are a lot of things I don't like
about C++ (like the syntax, for example), but all of the other
languages I know seem to be worse, at least for the type of work
I usually to.
--
James
Subject: Re: C++ == Gagware?
From: James Kanze <james.kanze@...>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
On Thursday, 8 July 1993 11:34:36 UTC+1, Jordan A. Bortz wrote:
> So I say -- you guys use it -- do you like it?
Not really, but I like most of the alternatives less.
> Is it productive?
Very.
> Can you read the code 6 months after you write it?
More so than in most languages. C++ is very expressive, which
means 1) it's simple to obfuscate, but 2) if you use it
correctly, the results are very readable. (More so, for
example, than Java.)
> Is it robust?
That is, I find, its strong point.
> Does it crash all the time?
No.
> Would you like a differnt
> object oriented c if it existed?
You mean like Objective-C? I've never actually tried it, but
from what little I saw, it doesn't tempt me.
> What about Smalltalk?
Not for the type of work I do. My applications have to work,
reliably, and (at least at present), they have to be fast.
> What do you use it for?
For a lot of things. In the past, I've mostly worked on large
scale servers, but I've done a complex order tracking system in
it, and I'm currently using it for numerically intensive
financial software.
> P.S. My personal feeling is, that for form based applications,
> you'd be better off with Smalltalk...
I don't know about Smalltalk, but for the user interface
front-end, you usually would be better off with a more dynamic
language. The code is normally very simple, with no real fixed
requirements (or they are constantly changing), and it doesn't
have to be very robust. In that context, I'll usually use
Python, rather than C++.
C++ shines (relative to the alternatives, at least) in larger
applications, where maintenance and robustness are critical.
> But there still is a need
> for C based Objects for device drivers, critical code, etc.
> But I think that those object-c programs need to be writable,
> readable, reusable, and maintainable, and I don't feel that C++ has any
> of those attributes.....despite being the "standard"
What you "feel" doesn't correspond with the reality of the
situation. C++ beats most of the languages out there for
readability, reusability and maintainability. (I've never used
modern Ada, but from what I hear, it's also very good in this
regard. Modula-3 was great, back then, but it hasn't evolved,
and it suffers from a serious lack of support.)
When it comes down to it, there are a lot of things I don't like
about C++ (like the syntax, for example), but all of the other
languages I know seem to be worse, at least for the type of work
I usually to.
--
James
via Usenet Forums - Usenet Search,Free Usenet - comp.lang.c++ http://www.pocketbinaries.com/usenet-forums/showthread.php?110226-C-Gagware&goto=newpost
View all the progranning help forums at:
http://www.pocketbinaries.com/usenet-forums/forumdisplay.php?128-Coding-forums
No comments:
Post a Comment