[OT] Re: C++ *for Git*

Miles Bader wrote:

Indeed. :-)

At the office, people constantly badmouth Perl, which has some admittedly evil syntax (especially around exception handling). My view is that good Perl programmers can produce good, readable, maintainable Perl programs, while bad Perl programmers can produce spaghetti the likes of which can't be found outside Italy.

OTOH, I think it is much harder to hang one's self with Python, though admittedly possible, as it is when you combine a bad coder with *any* language. Still, typical bad programmer + Perl is much worse than typical bad programmer + Python.

C++ is in the same category as Perl IMO: too easy to produce unreadable code. I contend that C is pretty much just as bad, though in a different way: while C lacks C++'s ability to bury code in multiple layers of opaque abstractions, C makes up for it by providing absolutely no GC-type structures (i.e., I do this now, you clean it up later when I'm no longer interested in it). C is all explicit, which is nice when you have a good handle on everything that is going on *or* an explicit system for remembering to do those types of cleanup tasks that is well-understood by all developers involved.

I like Ruby, except for the performance problems. Once they have those worked out, Ruby will be "Perl done right." ;-)

Kyle