Re: [OT] Re: C++ *for Git*
- From
- Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 23, 2007, 13:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <e5bfff550709230642v7fa5e837s7a5b9082b043672d@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20070923104525.GC7118@artemis.corp>
On 9/23/07, Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> > > > Object oriented languages creates black boxes: that's the reason why > > object oriented exsists and also the reason why Linus hates it ;-) > > This is just nonsense. This has been proved, though I can't find the > paper about this anymore, than modules (or packages whichever name you > give them) plus abstract types are as good as OO languages at creating > black boxes. I mean it has been proved that it gives the exact same > amount of expressiveness. So please stop with this myth. And don't speak > for people, I would be very surprised that Linus would dislike "black > boxes". Abstractions are good, when used wisely, and I would be much > surprised to see Linus pretend otherwise. >
>From a Linus recent thread:
Show 11 quoted lines
> - inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road > you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all > your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you > cannot fix it without rewriting your app. > >In other words, the only way to do good, efficient, and system-level and >portable C++ ends up to limit yourself to all the things that are >basically available in C. And limiting your project to C means that people >don't screw that up, and also means that you get a lot of programmers that >do actually understand low-level issues and don't screw things up with any >idiotic "object model" crap.
Perhaps I have misunderstood, but the idea I got is that for Linus OO brings in more problems than what it tries to fix.
> The real problem with big applications, is not that they are written > with C, C++, D, APL or Perl, but that they are big.
I have said exactly this, I don't understand where's your point in repeating the same concept.
> C has many many quirks, I don't discuss that, but OO programming > solves none of them, and the problems OO addresses are not the one that > may interfere in the git development.
I really don't get how you made up your mind I'm advocating OO ? The only comment I made on OO until now was to highlight one of its downsides.
> I mean, the two really interesting > things in OO (that haven't a tremendous cost in return) are member > overloading and inheritance.
You have listed two things that are a world apart one from each other.
member overload is just syntactic sugar for name mangling, while inheritance and the _strictly_ related virtual member functions (AKA polymorphism) is what opens the gates to all the stuff you have deeply blamed in your post.
>I see very few places where git would > benefit from that
Instead I see none. But probably you have looked at git code better then me.
> Can we go back to git now ? >
You are not forced to follow this thread if this bores you.
Thanks Marco