> > That goes back to the linked list/array thing, you dont have generics, so
> > you use the
> > easy thing without generics: linked lists, which are almost always a poor
> > choice.
Writing a polymorph array in c is less of 10 lines. Any decent
programmer should be able of coding it. can not you?. And, please
don't say that polymorph functions are inefcient because our migthy
super compiler also can do very good optimazations in inline
functions.
This reminds me this of Rob Pike:
Early in the rollout of Go I was told by someone that he
could not imagine working in a language without generic
types. As I have reported elsewhere, I found that an odd
remark.
To be fair he was probably saying in his own way that he
really liked what the STL does for him in C++. For the
purpose of argument, though, let's take his claim at face
value.
What it says is that he finds writing containers like lists
of ints and maps of strings an unbearable burden. I find
that an odd claim. I spend very little of my programming
time struggling with those issues, even in languages without
generic types.
But more important, what it says is that types are the way
to lift that burden. Types. Not polymorphic functions or
language primitives or helpers of other kinds, but types.
That's the detail that sticks with me.
> I don't think that is true, static arrays do the job way more often than
> people want
> to admit, and they are very well supported by C. Also, performance is
> critical in
> less cases than people like Bjarne Stroustrup want to admit, when it's
> critical you
> probably don't even want to rely on STL since it is not finely tuned (as
> Facebook's
> home brewed library shows, for instance).
Yes, they don't realize how generics destroy the locality of code because
they generate huge bloated binaries.
--
Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
