Rich Grise wrote:

> I wanted the subject line to be concise. I know "wtf" C++
> is: it's a nightmare morphodite klooge that looks like it
> was invented by MICRO$~1 rejects.
>
> Why the f$ck do they even have 'C' in the name?
>

[snip]

To paraphrase: "I'm too lazy/stupid to learn C++, therefore it's crap."

--
Alimony is a system by which, when two people make a mistake, one of
them keeps paying for it.
-- Peggy Joyce

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Franz M. Sauerzopf wrote:
>>> C++ has its drawbacks like so many programming languages, but its success
>>> did not come by chance.
>>
>>yeah, like MS's success did not come by chance...
>
> MS's success is not chance!

erm, yeah, i see now the way i phrased i makes the wrong implications. what
i meant to say was "C++'s success didn't come by chance in the same way
that MS's success didn't come by chance", but the factors that made it
successful have little to do with the quality. in the case of MS it is
indeed that Bill Gates has an incredible business talent. as we say in
dutch, he'd be able to sell a fridge to an eskimo. (and my apologies for
using the term "eskimo". it's just that that's the saying...)

> MS's success is related to Bill Gates' ability to define
> effective business processes. The guy would make billions if he
> wanted to sell flowers! And given his continued extreme success
> I just can't accept that any of it is an accident (which is
> indeed exactly what I too originally thought it was for several
> years in the 80's).

no, absolutely not. when he first went to IBM with MS-DOS, rather than
selling the software, which most pimply-faced geeks probably would have
done, he licensed it to them, under terms that allowed him to license it
to others as well. so when other manufacturers started building
IBM-compatible PC's, he could simply license them a copy as well. that's
not chance, that's very intelligent business tactics.

he doesn't know too much about proper software design, though...

>>the sheer fact that something is popular doesn't mean it's good. in fact,
>>if there's any correlation between popularity and quality, it's usually
>>the other way around...
>
> Commonly true; but often not. That makes it difficult to use as
> a criteria.

agreed.

> I don't think it applies to any programming
> language, much less to C++ (and I am not a fan of C++).

there is probably not a cause and effect relation between C++'s poor
design and its popularity, no.

> Personally, I wouldn't call it chance, but I think C++'s
> popularity is strictly a result of it being derived from C, and
> more or less representing an Object Oriented version of C. C of
> course is popular because it is an exceptionally efficient and
> logical systems programming language.

effective, true, logical, only in a sense. C grew out of the way hardware
was designed. on the lowest level, you have to address a computer in some
language that has the same fundamental principles as C: assignments and
commands. and because the hardware is designed that way, there will always
be a need for something like C. but IMVHO lisp shows that there is also
another approach to programming, one that is *not* ultimately forced by the
hardware design. (originally, lisp wasn't even meant to be a programming
language...) and from my (admittedly still small) experience with it, i
believe that that really is a better approach: if you design a programming
language, you should start out with how you would want to program a
computer, not with how the computer needs to be addressed on the most basic
level.

--
Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 22:35:41 +0000, Blumf wrote:

> Hey, it isn't that bad
>
> I don't know why so many people complain about C++. I think the worst that
> can be said about it is, like C, it still makes it easy to write messy
> code.

My major (not only) complaint about C++ is its lack of builtin
garbage collection. I can live with that in C, which was after all
developed as a low-level systems programming language - a high-level
assembler, as it has been described. C++ is supposed to be a high-level
language though.

> At least it's not perl >

You've got a point there :-)

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 10:45:30 +0000, Blumf wrote:

> C++ has the advantage of being backwards compatible with C, so developers
> didn't have to rewrite all their code just to take advantage of C++'s new
> features.

Which is what many people do - they use C++ compilers, but they keep
writing C code developing systems for which C is not all that well suited.
My point is that just about any other OO language out there is probably
better than C++, and the difficulty associated with transitioning from
a procedural way of doing things to the OO one dwarfs the difficulties in
learning a new programming language syntax.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jack D. Ripper wrote:

> My major (not only) complaint about C++ is its lack of builtin
> garbage collection. I can live with that in C, which was after all
> developed as a low-level systems programming language - a high-level
> assembler, as it has been described. C++ is supposed to be a high-level
> language though.

You got a point there and I've just spent the day tracing a memory leak in
some C++ code too.

[Quoting from you other reply to me]
> the difficulty associated with transitioning from
> a procedural way of doing things to the OO one dwarfs the difficulties in
> learning a new programming language syntax.

It's not so much the learning as the re-coding. If you have a project in C
you couldn't easily migrate it over to another language without rewriting
it for the new language, but you can easily switch over to C++ without
having to re-code.

Blumf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBElgVMid3IcxolsoRArtBAJ9yS4oezeMGFtMVkZ99aC Ao09Gu6gCfRrwA
4JiNPM37Mo+0wrnK5DhDgfI=
=FbU4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> I wanted the subject line to be concise. I know "wtf" C++
> is: it's a nightmare morphodite klooge that looks like it
> was invented by MICRO$~1 rejects.

I'm not a huge fan of C++ either. For most of my projects, C does the job.
I don't see lack of object-orientation as a show-stopper, since UNIX
programming inherently lends itself to "object orientation" with separation
of modules and distinct instances, each with its own process space, and
communication via pipes, sockets, etc. for flexible binding.

Overall, I think this programming approach where you let the OS worry about
distinct objects (processes) and communication is both safer and more
flexible. Incidentally, this model also works more harmoniously with some
of the cutting edge filesystems being developed (ReiserFS) ... it's all
about letting programmers make simple modules with generic interfaces to
the outside, and having the OS worry about 'coupling' complexities.

On the other hand, for GUI programming I want to use wxWidgets (free, open
source, quality framework) http://www.wxwidgets.org/ and this uses C++.
This also makes me realize a strength of C++ ; I can continue to use much
of my existing C code, put within an object oriented framework.

But to be honest, if I really had to write some object oriented code from
scratch I would probably use either Java or Python. Both provide clean OO.

--
Jem Berkes
http://www.sysdesign.ca/

Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Franz M. Sauerzopf wrote:
>>>> C++ has its drawbacks like so many programming languages, but its success
>>>> did not come by chance.
>>>
>>>yeah, like MS's success did not come by chance...
>>
>> MS's success is not chance!
>
>erm, yeah, i see now the way i phrased i makes the wrong implications. what

I read it wrong. Looks like all I did was use a lot of words to say
the same thing you did.

>i meant to say was "C++'s success didn't come by chance in the same way
>that MS's success didn't come by chance", but the factors that made it
>successful have little to do with the quality. in the case of MS it is
>indeed that Bill Gates has an incredible business talent. as we say in
>dutch, he'd be able to sell a fridge to an eskimo. (and my apologies for
>using the term "eskimo". it's just that that's the saying...)

Hee hee, I should tell you that first, my children and
grandchildren are all Eskimos, and use that term often. That is
because they are Yup'ik, not Inuit. Moreover, the people here
in Barrow, who technically are Inuit, hate it when people call
them that! They call themselves two things: Inupiat, or
Eskimos!

(It's those Canadians and Greenlanders who use the term Inuit.
And of course they *are* Inuit, so it's the right term too.)

You'll probably enjoy this URL,

http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/inuitoreskimo.html

But second, Eskimos buy more fridges than just about anyone!
Really! Some years ago it was discovered that the highest per
capita sales of home refrigerators and freezers was... right
here in Barrow Alaska. The reason for that is pretty simple
too; because most folks don't ever go catch two or three caribou
for the freezer, and never mind catching bowhead whales that
weight in at a ton per foot...

>> MS's success is related to Bill Gates' ability to define
>> effective business processes. The guy would make billions if he
>> wanted to sell flowers! And given his continued extreme success
>> I just can't accept that any of it is an accident (which is
>> indeed exactly what I too originally thought it was for several
>> years in the 80's).
>
>no, absolutely not. when he first went to IBM with MS-DOS, rather than
>selling the software, which most pimply-faced geeks probably would have
>done, he licensed it to them, under terms that allowed him to license it
>to others as well. so when other manufacturers started building
>IBM-compatible PC's, he could simply license them a copy as well. that's
>not chance, that's very intelligent business tactics.
>
>he doesn't know too much about proper software design, though...

And he laughed all the way to the banks to. To many many of them... :-)

>>>the sheer fact that something is popular doesn't mean it's good. in fact,
>>>if there's any correlation between popularity and quality, it's usually
>>>the other way around...
>>
>> Commonly true; but often not. That makes it difficult to use as
>> a criteria.
>
>agreed.
>
>> I don't think it applies to any programming
>> language, much less to C++ (and I am not a fan of C++).
>
>there is probably not a cause and effect relation between C++'s poor
>design and its popularity, no.
>
>> Personally, I wouldn't call it chance, but I think C++'s
>> popularity is strictly a result of it being derived from C, and
>> more or less representing an Object Oriented version of C. C of
>> course is popular because it is an exceptionally efficient and
>> logical systems programming language.
>
>effective, true, logical, only in a sense. C grew out of the way hardware

Yes, we agree on what the "sense" of that logic is.

>was designed. on the lowest level, you have to address a computer in some
>language that has the same fundamental principles as C: assignments and
>commands. and because the hardware is designed that way, there will always
>be a need for something like C. but IMVHO lisp shows that there is also
>another approach to programming, one that is *not* ultimately forced by the
>hardware design. (originally, lisp wasn't even meant to be a programming
>language...) and from my (admittedly still small) experience with it, i
>believe that that really is a better approach: if you design a programming
>language, you should start out with how you would want to program a
>computer, not with how the computer needs to be addressed on the most basic
>level.

My mind adapts to C rather well, but it took me years of
dabbling with eLisp now and then to even begin to get
comfortable with it. I can't say that I grok the concept yet...

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

In <slrnch3uev.d5.joostkremers@j.kremers4.news.arnhem .chello.nl>, Joost
Kremers wrote:

> Franz M. Sauerzopf wrote:
>> C++ has its drawbacks like so many programming languages, but its success
>> did not come by chance.
>
> yeah, like MS's success did not come by chance...
>
> the sheer fact that something is popular doesn't mean it's good. in fact,
> if there's any correlation between popularity and quality, it's usually
> the other way around...

You got me there. I stand corrected. Although if we are talking about
success among professionals, I would expect a more direct correlation.

Still, I think C++ is often badly rated by people who know too little
about it. Like in every language you have to think it to be able to use it
effectively. And once you understand the thinking of C++ it is very
powerful. And, coming from the C side rather convenient.

I really don't think C++ is the best programming language ever. Just
trying to be fair.

Good luck
Franz


--
Franz M. Sauerzopf
Atominstitut, TU Wien

On 2004-08-05, Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>
>> MS's success is related to Bill Gates' ability to define
>> effective business processes. The guy would make billions if he
>> wanted to sell flowers! And given his continued extreme success
>> I just can't accept that any of it is an accident (which is
>> indeed exactly what I too originally thought it was for several
>> years in the 80's).
>
> no, absolutely not. when he first went to IBM with MS-DOS, rather than
> selling the software, which most pimply-faced geeks probably would have
> done, he licensed it to them, under terms that allowed him to license it
> to others as well. so when other manufacturers started building
> IBM-compatible PC's, he could simply license them a copy as well. that's
> not chance, that's very intelligent business tactics.

Gates' success is almost entirely a function of who, not what, he is. He is
the son of a lawyer and a social doyen (sp?). He was raised to be a
gamesman, where everything in life is a competition. Absent any enforceable
rules, he writes his own.

He learned from his father that success means doing it and cleaning up
afterward, where the cleaning crew (legal department) is his father's law
firm.

He got the contact with IBM through his mother's social contacts.
Otherwise, how the hell would IBM have ever heard of him? Kildall lost out,
not because he was flying, but because his wife wouldn't sign a blanket NDA.
Gates didn't have to worry about that because he made the deal and then went
out and got the goods. QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) became MSDOS
(MicroSoft Disk Operating System); whatever the hell that means.

He bullied Paul Allen into giving Microsoft to him. Paul needed help and
Gates told him only on the condition that he (Gates) was in charge. How was
Paul to know what was to come?

You call classic robber baron piracy intelligent business tactics, and
obviously many would agree. I think history will judge it otherwise.

> he doesn't know too much about proper software design, though...

Not according to Torvalds: "He (Gates) has nothing to teach me about
software engineering, and I have nothing to teach him about business". Or
something of the sort.

<snip>
>> Personally, I wouldn't call it chance, but I think C++'s
>> popularity is strictly a result of it being derived from C, and
>> more or less representing an Object Oriented version of C. C of
>> course is popular because it is an exceptionally efficient and
>> logical systems programming language.
>
> effective, true, logical, only in a sense. C grew out of the way hardware
> was designed. on the lowest level, you have to address a computer in some
> language that has the same fundamental principles as C: assignments and
> commands. and because the hardware is designed that way, there will always
> be a need for something like C. but IMVHO lisp shows that there is also
> another approach to programming, one that is *not* ultimately forced by the
> hardware design. (originally, lisp wasn't even meant to be a programming
> language...) and from my (admittedly still small) experience with it, i
> believe that that really is a better approach: if you design a programming
> language, you should start out with how you would want to program a
> computer, not with how the computer needs to be addressed on the most basic
> level.

Good assessment, I think. Now, I'm not a programmer or a software
professional, albeit I have written stuff for myself and read a bit. So
what follows is my (uninformed as may be) opinion. I offer it as an
outsider's observation.

With regard computers, it would seem reasonable to assume that one either
talks to computers in a language the computer would understand, or one
should train the computer to understand a language humans would understand.
Probably the former makes more sense, as humans are more adaptable than
computers.

I've perused Deitel/Deitel on C++, and its obviously very powerful in terms
of its ability to handle complex systems, but it makes one have to think and
work its own way. The single benefit there is that it forces everyone thus,
and so people can at least comprehend somewhat of what others have done.

So far as I can tell, it does nothing that cannot be done in C, except that
one has to establish the superstructure oneself. But the net result is that
one creates a high level language each time one sets out anew. Reusing code
makes that much easier, but then others who would maintain the code must
needs learn the created language.

Am I correct in my belief that some high level languages are actually
written in C? If so, that says something, I think. Not sure what...


NB: I've morphed. "pseudonym" > "no.nickname" > "name". Probably not done
yet, time will tell.
--
Email is wtallman at olypen dot com

Joost Kremers wrote:
....
> dutch, he'd be able to sell a fridge to an eskimo. (and my apologies for
> using the term "eskimo". it's just that that's the saying...)

Yes, shame on you. A schoolchild knows 'Eskimo' is a proper noun, and
as such, is capitalized.

Cheers!
Rich

(BTW, we have the same saying in the US. :-) )