Re: [OT] Re: C++ *for Git*
- From
David Brown <git@davidb.org>
- Date
- Sep 23, 2007, 06:25 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20070923062527.GA8979@old.davidb.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20070923020951.GF24423@planck.djpig.de>
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 04:09:51AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
>On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 12:50:00AM +0200, Alex Unleashed wrote: >> I'd say being forced to be explicit is a good thing here, so that the >> programmer at least has some sort of good understanding of what is >> going on, and chances are that if he doesn't really know, things just >> won't work out (quite unlike a lot of other languages where this >> programmer might actually end up with something half-assed that >> "mostly" works). >> For some reason it seems to me a lot harder to find bad programmers >> surviving using C than a lot of the other languages. > >Idiot-proofness-by-complexity is a myth IMHO. Idiots can be quite >persistent...
I work with plenty of them :-) It's all C. All of the same things happen, with management looking for magic bullets to solve problems caused by bad programmers.
Dave