++CD-ROM drive

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

>>>>> "Viktor" == Viktor Pavlenko <vp@example.com> writes:

>>>>> "SY" == Shimpei Yamashita <shimpei@example.com> writes:
    SY> Snide comment of the day: On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:57:40AM
    SY> +0900, Viktor Pavlenko wrote:
    5> performance penalty for the beauty of C++.

    SY> That's what I call a lose-lose situation.

    Viktor> Snide or not... As far as C/C++ comparison goes, if you do
    Viktor> a project in C++ and then ask yourself `should I have done
    Viktor> it in C', you would know the answer.

It's typically a tough call, actually.  For code that I care about
enough to ask such a question ex-post, the answer often is "this would
have been a better program if I had been forced to put more thought
into the details."  Would it have been worth the extra effort?
Sometimes yes, mostly no.  But definitely better.

Of course, one could put the effort in for the C++ version as well;
but I don't, and what C++ code I've seen "in the wild" suggests ...

    Viktor> No intension to fight for it but: 95% of C++ critics never
    Viktor> managed to learn C++ :)

... that puts the critics well ahead: 98% of C++ programmers still
haven't learned to program in C++.

Snide comments aside, _none_ of the textbook writers seem to know how;
Bjarne and K&R :) are still the only references to style I trust.  I
certainly haven't seen any good C++ code "in the wild."  (Exception:
libstdc++ isn't at all bad.  But it's not a very good guide to app
design.)  Just stuff that looks like FORTRAN with a bag and a kludge
on the side, translated to C with a Perl script.

Don't get me wrong; I do think C++ can be used to create beautiful
code.  The problem is that most C++ users don't take the hint from
Bjarne's comment about the bug in the name ("connoisseurs of syntax
say it should have been ++C").

I was successfully fighting the urge to rant, but I couldn't not
respond to this.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."