On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Tim Johnson wrote: > I concur, I worked in C and C++ for 12 years. I added C++ later in > my programming life. I don't recommend C++ for single programmers. > - that is to say - 1 coder for 1 codebase. One can do good enough > OOP in ansi C believe it or not, I learned to. > > It is interesting to note that most of linux is written in C, > rather than C++ and is not python as well?
You are right, I remember this was explicitly stated somewhere on usenet that Linux kernel was written in object oriented style and AFAIK this is true (based on my own lurking into the source). But I think C++ could and should be used by solo programmers. I just suspect once we get past trivial stuff (defining class hierarchies, using iostreams, containers and STL and the like), things get a little tricky but I cannot say for sure because I am yet to go there. I probably agree C++ should not be used by solo progs writing very big programs, if this is what you mean. I am still researching alternatives, but for such endeavour I would rather choose Haskell or CL. However, I notice, for example, Boost C++ Library and their attempt to recreate some aspects of functional language. This gives me idea about what can be done in C++ - basically, the stuff is so powerfull it seems to almost reach into CL-reserved realms. With limitations, because it's different language, but still impressive for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_(C%2B%2B_libraries) http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_49_0/?view=category_Function-objects http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_49_0/doc/html/lambda.html http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_49_0/libs/bind/bind.html OTOH, I guess there are performance penalties. So, it boils down to individual's decision about pricing his own time or machine's time higher than another. Like, hand writing specially optimised versions of some functions or trying to lure compiler into generating them automatically (with templates). But, compilers are improving. In algorithmic contests, C++ is used quite a lot, from what I could see (and some people use Pascal, compile with Free Pascal Compiler, nice thing). BTW, Java folks trie(d|s) to go this way (templates etc) too, but I don't trace their efforts much, so cannot say how they fare(d). > > - Common Lisp - "nice industrial standard" (depends on one's preferred > > definition of "nice", of course, as well as "industrial" and "standard") > I took a hard look at Common Lisp at one time. I got the > impression that the "Common Lisp" is not to Lisp what Ansi C is to > C. > > IOWS, there does remain incompatibilities between different > Common Lisp implementations. Interesting. I play with CL for some time but haven't rammed this particular wall yet. Do you remember more about it? If you can't be specific, perhaps some hint will do. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com ** -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
