Re: Broken dream of mine :(

2009/9/17 Bas Wijnen <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:56:53AM +0530, arnuld uttre wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Bas Wijnen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:30:08PM +0530, arnuld uttre wrote:
>>
>> > ... SNIP...
>> > Anyway, it historically makes sense that a language evolves with
>> > hardware.  And C, even if it still has the same name, has evolved a bit
>> > as well.  The real evolution is of course in the step to C++, where it
>> > really becomes a different language (if you want to use it that way).
>>
>> I really don't consider C++ a really technically sane evolution.
>
> Evolution doesn't need to be technically sane. ;-)  I don't consider the
> fact that x86 came out as the 'survivor' to be technically sane either,
> but it happened nonetheless.
>
> However, I disagree with you about C++.  It is a very nice language IMO,
> which only misses a few features.  Python has those features, but misses
> other things.  Ah well...
>
>> Right, and I am not genius. are you ?
>
> I don't think so.  That's why I'm saying it's not a good idea to design
> a new language before working further on the Hurd.
>
>> I am not influenced by either RMS or Linus's opinions, I like neither
>> C nor C++.
>
> Oh I'm sure you are influenced by (almost) any opinion you hear.  You
> don't have to agree with it all, but it does change your view a tiny
> little bit.
>
> Not liking C and C++ is of course possible and acceptable, regardless of
> what was the main influence for that opinion. :-)
>
>> Unlike C, C++ is clumsy and full of monstrous ad-hoc complexity.
>
> Is it?  Not if you use it right, IMO.  But we could of course have a
> different view of what is "monstrous".
>
> I think that C++ is in fact much cleaner than C.  The language may not
> be so complex, but that means that the constructs you need to get
> something done are much more monstrous than what you would need in C++.
>
>> Problem with C is its not very expressive, the point I like very much
>> about C is its size. You can do big things with such a small language.
>
> You can, but you need to think of technical details all the time.
> That's what I meant when talking about the problem with C that you don't
> see while using it: you need to be constantly aware of lots of things,
> and that keeps your mind from the actual problems you're trying to
> solve.

It's the same with C++. It allows for many things some of which I
would consider monstrous. Whlie you can write nice code with it, much
nicer than with C alone you still need to be aware of how things work
internally. That's the basic thing in which C++ did not manage to step
away form C, and that's probably also the thing that makes it possible
to write a kernel in C++.

Thanks

Michal