On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:25:02 -0500 Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Jimmie, > Seeing how much C++ people complain about the C like stuff or the actual > C stuff in C++. Why don't they just grow a pair and clean out all the > stuff they complain about. Simplify the language and get on with it. As > it is, is seems as if is just growing and nothing gets removed. Only new > books saying don't use the old stuff. If you don't want it used then > remove it. Ugh! Because it's one of C++'s design goals to be backwards-compatible to C. It's the only thing I'd attribute to the C language. Given this design-goal, the result has been pretty remarkable. But apart from that, I need a programming language to solve problems for me efficiently. And no other language has surpassed C for me (by far!). Many of those apologetics trying to sweet-talk C++ are actually quite obsessed with the fact they wasted years learning a language no human can possibly learn to the fullest. The strongest argument for me against C++ is not a technical one, but the fact that you are forced to program in subsets. This leads to the problem that new developers planning on contributing to a project might have problems with adapting to it because it uses a different subset of the C++-language than they are accustomed to. I personally started with C++ a few years back when I began with system programming. The more I do with C and read about the problems C++-developers have, I'm glad about having made the switch to C, even though it was harder to learn in the beginning. > My apologies for the mini-rant. And Hi! First time poster to suckless. > Thanks for having a group which fights against the current direction in > complexity in software. You're welcome. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN <d...@frign.de>
