On Wednesday 06 August 2003 01:02, Dave Carrigan wrote: > > Language experts sure get their shorts knotted up over simple questions. > > > > Because your question had to do with undefined and > implementation-dependent behavior.
I know that. See my other posts. I asked a question about handling dynamic memory not type casting. I changed what I was doing to use templates and made a container class (probably did it wrong, but I don't care at this point). I got dragged over the coals for type casting - something used often in the kernel. Now there is a suggestion that C++ is not C, the kernel is written is C, and so the use of type casting in the kernel does not apply to C++. That arguement suggests that C is unclean and C++ is doing things the Right Way (if you're smart enough to use it correctly). All this worry over casting. It's a wonder that the kernel works on Intel, SPARC, Alpha, etc. Funny thing is that while the kernel is working (casts and all), you guys are compiling your pure C++ code. Type casting works in my application on Intel 32bit Linux. Using casts is useful in my work with bit oriented telephony signaling protocols where you have to count bits and octets because parameter structures in messages are dynamic. I am _not_ going to add all sorts of portability enhancing do-dads that make C++ even more difficult to read than it already is. If what I make is useful and someone wants it on a different platform, then we'll discuss a new project. I could spend a lot of time becoming the a better C++ programmer and have little time left over for being an application expert. We can't all be C++ experts and I certainly don't claim to be one. I came for help and I got chastised for writing bad code. That is not the usual Debian way from my short experience with Debian. This experience suggests that some experts like to to make others feel stupid and they could care less about helping people with their knowledge. Is this how people are treated when they release open source code - language experts pouncing on every line of badly written code? It is unreasonable to expect application experts to be language experts. It's good if they are but it's not necessary. I say it's better to create more things with bad code than to create less things with elegant and easily portable code. Portability is a job for platform experts. Application experts should stick to their knitting. Language experts should ply their trade with more respect for the humans that come to them for help. Oh, and show your elegant portable code to a rank-and-file programmer for a judgement on readability - you'll probably find him or her scratching their heads in confusion for a long time. C++ already has a reputation for being incomprehensible and thereby difficult to maintain. I can see why programming as a profession is fading and why programming jobs are going to the lowest bidder. Who wants to pay programmers to create issues to argue about instead of creating product? -- Mike Mueller -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
