From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Mar 5 16:31:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mailhub.yumyumyum.org (dsl092-171-091.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.171.91]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E797537B400 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:31:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 6738 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 00:31:15 -0000 Received: from dsl092-171-091.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net (66.92.171.91) by dsl092-171-091.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 00:31:15 -0000 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:31:15 -0500 (EST) From: Kenneth Culver To: Nate Williams Cc: Terry Lambert , "Steve B." , "Eugene L. Vorokov" , Subject: Re: C vs C++ In-Reply-To: <15493.24457.986109.726909@caddis.yogotech.com> Message-ID: <20020305193028.H6706-100000@alpha.yumyumyum.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Not so. Having done C professionally for umpteen years, C++ for a > little less than umpteen years, and Java for 4, I can say w/out > reservation that C++ sucks. OOP programming doesn't *have* to be hard. > C++ puts too many roadblocks in your way. > > It not just because Java is newer that it's displacing C++ as the > primary development language. It's because C++ as a language is *NOT* > well-designed (design my commitee). C is becoming more and more like > C++ in this regard. (And before Terry starts whining about strongly > typed languages, let me state that IMO strongly typed languages are a > good thing, since they allow you to verify your code at *COMPILE* time, > vs. at runtime.) > > I can get more done in a shorter period of time with Java than with C++. > However, when speed is of the issues, the computer get more done in a > shorter amount of time with C than I can with either Java/C++. > > My Java programs can often-times run *faster* than my own C++ programs, > simply because Java (the language) makes it easier to produce a good > design. I don't find the limitations to be limitations so much, and > they tend to force me to do better design up front. Both are OOP > languages, but C++ *feels* like a non-OOP language with some hooks to > make it more OOP like. (I'd like to play with Smalltalk, but alas > there's no market for it, and there's no time left in my day to work on > what I need to get done, let alone for things like playing with ST.) > > C++ in it's simple form *can* be easier to maintain, but it rarely turns > out that way. As programmers, it's difficult to not succumb to the > temptation to use the latest/greatest feature of the language, since at > the time it certainly *seems* like it would help things out in the > long-term. :) > > Finally, well-written/optimized C++ code is an abomination to look at, > and requires sacrificing small animals at alters whenever you need to > modify it. :) > > > I need to learn to say what I mean in a better manner. I've been trying to say the last comment for this whole thread and just couldn't get it into words. Thanks. Ken To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message