Re: is LISP the ultimate prgram language?
"James Kanze" wrote:
<WRT Linux quality>
I definitely think it's easier to develop quality code in C++
than in C, perhaps by an order of magnitude or more.
I think that statement epitomizes a huge problem I have had with C++, and
always will have. As I learned I kept looking for this wonderful magic
bullet in C++, kind of like structured programming. Once one really learns
about structured programming there is an enormous increase in productivity,
perhaps as much as an order of magnitude. As I worked myself through the
process of learning C++, I would say to myself, yes, this is nice, that is
nice, but where is the *really* good part? After many years I have
concluded that there is no really good part. It is just a complicated
agglomeration of pretty good ideas, fitted together in one language.
Someone mentioned, upthread, a Swiss army knife, and I think it is an
excellent metaphor. My problem is that I detest Swiss army knives and
Crescent wrenches!
Change order of magnitude to 40% better and I am on board as a C++ guy.
You can't make a nice cohesive, consistent, language (such as Algol 60 or
Pascal) with such diverse roots, one root is C, cryptic beyond belief with
'%' meaning modulo, and the huge, 15 character or so guru selected names of
things used in the STL. I sometimes find myself using *two* lines of code
for a simple for loop with iterators. It's kind of like someone grafted
COBOL on to a Teletype friendly APL. It is just a nasty, ugly mix, usable,
but still distasteful.