I prefer D, and I am yet to see a program in D that doesn't look beautiful (that's kind of the point of the language, actually). Of course, again, you can do much of the things you can do in C (except the exceptionally horrible and unsafe things), so I guess ugly D code does exist, but the language goes out of its way to provide all means to write clever and easy to understand code, which is rewarding in and of itself.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Mono Developers Regret Doing Moonlight In C++
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by lano1106 View Postthanks for the comment. Yes complexity in my post was ambigious. What I had in mind is with C++ features, it gets out of the way a lot of boilerplate code that the language takes care for you. Yes you can emulate RTTI, polymorphism and constructor/destructor with C but the cost will be a lot of lines of code. So let say this unnecessary boilerplate code represents 25% of the C code, this is adding 'complexity' to the task figuring what the other 75% does.
One of my favorite C++ idiom is RAII. This idom alone usually simplify a lot the code of a function and removes a lot of potential for future leaks.
Again, I understand where C++ bad reputation comes from. I have seen really bad code that made me swear. Writting readable C++ with good OO design is quite rare.
In defense of C++, in my short experience, ugly C++ is far nicer than ugly C. At least in ugly C++ you get classes, which usually hint you on what belongs together (which is important when you find projects with colossal dependencies because someone glued together huge amounts of unrelated pieces into single files).
Comment
-
Originally posted by ua=42 View PostI am a programmer. You don't use C or C++ unless you have to. Other languages are so much nicer and more importantly quicker to write in. Though I would consider C++ nicer than C because of the ability to have objects.
Trying to use it as a kitchen sink would be an exercise in nuance and pain, but the same can be said of any programming language.
Comment
-
Icaza is to Linux, like Elop to Nokia. You can't take him seriously, after he admitted not using Linux for more than several years, whilst being head of GNOME, then abandoning Linux development altogether and doing pure proprietary on Mac; and also calling Stallman zealot completely ignoring four freedoms of GPL. Cxx is perfectly fine, pefectly portable and perfectly patent clear. iCaza should be banned from Linux for good.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lano1106 View Postthanks for the comment. Yes complexity in my post was ambigious. What I had in mind is with C++ features, it gets out of the way a lot of boilerplate code that the language takes care for you. Yes you can emulate RTTI, polymorphism and constructor/destructor with C but the cost will be a lot of lines of code. So let say this unnecessary boilerplate code represents 25% of the C code, this is adding 'complexity' to the task figuring what the other 75% does.
One of my favorite C++ idiom is RAII. This idom alone usually simplify a lot the code of a function and removes a lot of potential for future leaks.
Originally posted by brosisIcaza is to Linux, like Elop to Nokia. You can't take him seriously, after he admitted not using Linux for more than several years, whilst being head of GNOME, then abandoning Linux development altogether and doing pure proprietary on Mac; and also calling Stallman zealot completely ignoring four freedoms of GPL. Cxx is perfectly fine, pefectly portable and perfectly patent clear. iCaza should be banned from Linux for good.Last edited by BlackStar; 04 January 2014, 06:37 PM.
Comment
-
I am a better programmer than anybody else, and I am right!
...or: even a large amount of anecdotal evidence does not add up to data. Even if you are a programmer, your opinion does not amount to truth, nor can be inherently considered better than that of a non-programmer.
Any comparison between C and C++ must be grounded in some kind of metrics: performance? development time? ease of maintenance? Above all, if the comparison has to be performed "out there" and not based on a list of feature sets, the comparison must follow a scientific, reproducible methodology.
For example, you can check out the Bhattacharya/Neamtiu study (avalable here). Their conclusion:
To keep factors such as developer competence or software process uniform, we investigate open source applications written in a combination of C and C++. We formulate four hypotheses that investigate whether using C++ leads to better software than using C. We test these hypotheses on large data sets to ensure statistically significant results. Our analyses demonstrate that applications that start with C as the primary language are shifting their code base to C++, and that C++ code is less complex, less prone to errors and requires less effort to maintain.
On another note...
<troll_mode>
I am of the opinion that having written Moonlight is something to regret per se, regardless of the language used! :P
</troll_mode>
Comment
-
c++'s biggest problem is that it doesn't really establish a "this is how you should do things" paradigm. What typically happens is that it ends up being over engineered and misused with things like overuse of inheritance, abuse of encapsulation, classes with too many mutable methods which means difficult to track state. And too many folks still like to junk up the global namespace with mutables, just crazy stuff.
Honestly I can't imagine being able to reliably create robust readable code that provides good high level algorithms like graphs, matrices, polynomials, etc with 'c'. Perhaps something like mono doesn't need access to high level stuffs like this considering mono is just another low level tool itself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ua=42 View PostI am a programmer. You don't use C or C++ unless you have to. Other languages are so much nicer and more importantly quicker to write in.
Originally posted by ua=42 View PostThough I would consider C++ nicer than C because of the ability to have objects.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlackStar View PostGood thing he's stopped writing about Linux then. You may rejoice, but it's a sad day when one of the biggest proponents of Linux turns his back on free software.
If you want Linux to be successful - do the opposite of what iCaza recommends.
Comment
Comment