C++ (was: Broken dream of mine :( )

[olafBuddenhagen]

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 06:26:10PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:

> 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).

Unfortunately, in spite of the name and resulting general perception,
C++ can not really be considered an evolution of C. While it adds a
couple of useful features, and a couple of features considered useful by
some, it also takes away an essential feature of C -- its elegance.

> Of course Richard Stallman is a known hater of C++.  He has a point
> that everybody knows C, so using that makes the code readable for
> everyone. [...] IMO his love for C is unreasonable.  

Richard Stallman is not a C++ hater, and certainly not a C lover. As you
said yourself, his decision to use C for GNU was purely pragmatic. His
actual love is Lisp.

If you want to cite an actual known C++ hater, take Linus Torvalds.

I must say that I fully agree with him on this. His argument makes
perfect sense:

> C may still be useful in some places, but not in big projects.

Neither is C++ suitable for big projects.

Linus' argument is that for the kind of low-level code where C is
useful, C++ doesn't offer any advantages; only problems. While for the
kind of code where a higher-level language is more useful, you better
use a true high-level language. C++ is neither here nor there.

> However, our main interest is not that everyone can read our code.

Free software is about enabling people to understand and adapt the
software. An obscure language is a major obstacle.

-antrik-