Hi Joyner's article is very old. Has he updated it recently?
I didn't care much for Joyner's article either, but I learned a great deal about C++ from reading it. If you want or need to deal with the hardware, then you should use a language that permits this access. If not, then by what ever you hold holy, choose a language that insulates you from the hardware. You choose your advice by choosing your advisor. If you don't believe me, consider asking a Priest about birth control. Eiffel, Java, Ada fill this bill of a language that insulates from the hardware. --David Listen folks, you choose your advice by choosing your advior. On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote: > > > On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Eric G. Miller wrote: > > > For a good explanation of how C++ took all the problematic issues of C and > > added new sources of errors, see http://www.elj.com/cppcv3/. > > Hah! More like this: > > "For a vivid example of how much free time ivory tower academics have to > weep and moan about languages other than their favorite, see > http://www.elj.com/cppcv3/"; > > I mean, really. I've read all three editions of this guy whining about > C++ (and C) and I don't think I can take it any longer. "Be like me, use > a language with imperceptible market penetration." I really think Mr. > Joyner is my polar opposite. When I think of a computer, I think of an > electronic device which will do such-and-such thing if you place value > 0x37 at memory offset 0. When Ian Joyner looks at a computer, he wants to > represent his model of the universe inside it. The computer and the human > are fundametally different things. You'll expend an aweful lot of energy > trying to represent human concepts in a computer. By contrast, it is very > easy for a human to learn computer concepts. > > If you ask an Eiffel programmer how to get the value of a byte at a given > offset in the computer's memory, they'll start with an explanation about > why the programmer shouldn't concern himself with computer memory; memory > is in the "how" domain. From there, they will launch a long lecture that > probably won't answer the question but will result in something absurd > like class ByteObserver (and its companion, class ByteObserverManager). > A C programmer will just say *offset. > > Anyway, back to "A Critique of C++"... > > Mr. Joyner's treatise shouldn't be considered anything other than a > finely-ground axe. Many of his specific criticisms start out "It is well > known..." or "It hash been shown..." without reference to the place where > it has been shown or the people to whom it is well known. In one place, > he complains that C++ is not suited to concurrent processing (without > reference to the tremendous amount of existing concurrent C++ software -- > Mozilla is a modern example), but fails to mention that, at the time of > his writing, Eiffel lacked support for concurrency altogether! > > Someday, if I suddenly become a bored academic, I'll write a complete > critique of Mr. Joyner's critique. At the current time, I am too busy > writing actual software. > > -jwb > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --David David Teague, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Because software support is free, timely, useful, technically accurate, and friendly. (I hope this is all of the above.)
