--jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:36:42AM -0400, MJM wrote: > On Wednesday 06 August 2003 01:02, Dave Carrigan wrote: > > >?Language experts sure get their shorts knotted up over simple questio= ns. > > > ? > > > > Because your question had to do with undefined and > > implementation-dependent behavior. >=20 > I know that. See my other posts. I asked a question about handling dyn= amic=20 > memory not type casting. I changed what I was doing to use templates and= =20 > made a container class (probably did it wrong, but I don't care at this= =20 > point).=20 >=20 > I got dragged over the coals for type casting - something used often in t= he=20 > kernel. Now there is a suggestion that C++ is not C, the kernel is writt= en=20 > is C, and so the use of type casting in the kernel does not apply to C++.= =20 > That arguement suggests that C is unclean and C++ is doing things the Rig= ht=20 > Way (if you're smart enough to use it correctly). All this worry over=20 > casting. It's a wonder that the kernel works on Intel, SPARC, Alpha, etc= =2E =20 > Funny thing is that while the kernel is working (casts and all), you guys= are=20 > compiling your pure C++ code. I think what people mean is that C++ and C are not the same. And that things that are perfectly OK in C might not be OK in C++. I wonder if the linux kernel would compile on all platforms with g++ instead of gcc :) > This experience suggests that some experts like to to make others feel st= upid=20 > and they could care less about helping people with their knowledge. Is t= his=20 > how people are treated when they release open source code - language expe= rts=20 > pouncing on every line of badly written code? =20 I think most people (myself included) would be really happy if language experts would pounce on every line of bad code I wrote and tell me how to write it properly :) > It is unreasonable to expect application experts to be language experts. = =20 > It's good if they are but it's not necessary. I say it's better to create= =20 > more things with bad code than to create less things with elegant and eas= ily=20 > portable code. Portability is a job for platform experts. Application=20 > experts should stick to their knitting. Language experts should ply thei= r=20 > trade with more respect for the humans that come to them for help. Programmers should code for portability. By using a language that is widely available and by coding in a non-system-specific style. > Oh, and show your elegant portable code to a rank-and-file programmer for= a=20 > judgement on readability - you'll probably find him or her scratching the= ir=20 > heads in confusion for a long time. C++ already has a reputation for bein= g=20 > incomprehensible and thereby difficult to maintain. That's an argument for ditching C++, not for writing what might be bad C++. > I can see why programming as a profession is fading and why programming j= obs=20 > are going to the lowest bidder. Who wants to pay programmers to create= =20 > issues to argue about instead of creating product? This is a mailing list, not a bloody software production house. The people here are not here to work. They're here to discuss things and answer questions. P.S. I don't know if your code was proper or not. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm not a C++ expert. Bijan --jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/MRjiUof+95vTyAwRArsiAJ9X1rErD00YW8g/SZlMsxHr7NpJBgCgt9lW 8G/Q+UeMgd1Y0SIYoDOj9Ok= =JlmO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
