Re: [OT] Re: C++ *for Git*
- From
Alex Unleashed <alex@flawedcode.org>
- Date
- Sep 22, 2007, 22:50 UTC
- Message-ID
- <5e4707340709221550o6d0a6062qd51c16a278727c29@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <46F55E03.2040404@krose.org>
On 9/22/07, Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> 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'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.
Alex