RE: CD-ROM drive

[Josh Glover <jmglov@example.com>]

Quoting Viktor Pavlenko <vp@example.com>:

>> last time I used it, it made my system as slow as 
>> Windows.  It has a lot of overhead, being coded in C++, 
>> which is a less efficient language than C is.
> 
> 5% performance penalty for the beauty of C++. My 
> impression is that Qt is very good.

I would go so far as to say that C++ is:

1) Not automatically less efficient than C
2) Worth the performance hit when you are writing something 
as complex as a window management system

>> All the GNOME stuff is built in C, and in my opinion, 
>> it's written better and it looks better.
> 
> It's C using OO design (=horror)

This is my biggest complaint with hardcore C guys. Task ni 
yotte, tool ha chigau kana? What I am saying is, why use C 
when you are trying to write OO code. What you end up doing 
is creating your own way of implementing OO fundamentals 
that most people agree are implemented pretty well in C++. 
Just as I do not use C++ for simple shell scripts, I also 
do not use C for huge, complex piles of OO'd code.

As all intelligent people would agree, LISP is what we all 
*should* be using!

"All programming should be done in LISP; most programming 
is not done in LISP. Someday the world will achieve 
justice." - Dr. Stephan Feyock

"C is a systems programming language. C++ is a systems 
programming language with a bunch of large tumours growing 
on its back." - Dr. Stephan Feyock

This Dr. Feyock character is the AI guy at my university's 
CS department. For more of these gems, check out:

http://133.28.170.210/webhome/quotations.phtml


---------------------------------------------------
"No segfault, no problem."

Josh Glover
jmglov@example.com
---------------------------------------------------