On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 01:33:19PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:22:34 +0400 > "Alexander S." <alex0pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey Alexander, > > > furthermore, syntactic sugar and an ability to write e. g. > > win.repaint(rect) instead of window_repaint_rectangle(win, &rect) > > actually *increases* the readability of code when you have to deal > > with several lines of that fashion in a row. Syntactic sugar, say what > > you want about it, tends to reduce noise, as does language support for > > certain powerful programming practices. > > Have you ever heard of function pointers?
Tell me more, how do you implicitely bind the 'this' parameter with a function pointer ? > > TLDR: C++ does many things to simplify a programmer's life, and you > > cannot deny that. But it is also undeniable that it does them all > > poorly, with rather obscure semantics even. > > So when C++ does a poor job at doing many things to simplify a > programmer's life, it doesn't simplify a programmer's life. > Imho, the opposite is the case. C++ is not perfect, that is all, but rejecting imperfects improvements is not the solution. C++'s biggest problem right now is backward compatibility with both C, and previous versions of itself. Lots of things have been tried, some worked well, others less well, we learned and have guidelines. Every C++ programmer I know would love a cleaned up version of the language, but there is just too much existing code for that to happen. C share the same problems, we cannot really say that the _Keywords that got added to C99 and C11 are very elegant, the whole string library has written deprecated on all the unsafe functions, the preprocessor can be a pain, and the whole compilation model does not scale. All I'm saying here is, sucky programs can be written in any language, and I do not like to see Kakoune rejected on the sole ground of its implementation language. Cheers, Maxime Coste.
