Re: semi-OT: source of quote?
"Johannes Schaub (litb)" <schaub-johannes@web.de>
Balog Pal wrote:
"Florian Weimer" <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
The closest quote is this:
| In fact, in Linux we did try C++ once already, back in 1992.
| It sucks. Trust me - writing kernel code in C++ is a BLOODY STUPID
| IDEA.
(Linus Torvalds, January 2004)
Maybe so, but there are ideas even more stupid. Like listening to that
Linus Torvalds offer to say, especially it it involves C++.
Certainly the statement is correct, if we beef it up with its
environment.
C++ is a tool for the able people. It will suck miserably if tried by LT
and his surroundings.
Just do not extrapolate it.
(Interesting coincidence: at the very moment I write an extension for the
linux kernel. It must be done in C99, as C++ can't play. It can be done
certainly, but is a big pain in the ass. )
I certainly agree with some of his opinions. The locale stuff in C++ is
just
- hmm - useless. And the weird ways template mataprogramming is abused to
solve some problems it was never intended to is disgusting too.
His points may be agreed on in separation, but are bad in the context they
are stated. And stink badly too. You say locale stuff is bad? Well, it
is. Who is hurt by that? Those 3-4 providers of the standard lib. The
rest of the world just ignores the thing. What is it compartd to the
problem that std::string is bad? That sucks a ton of blood. Along with
other problems picked up from STL -- those that have widespread usage.
Disgusting TMP? Is there obligation to read the code? Boost works quite
well to the specification. The lack of core features much TMP struggles
to cover is indeed bad -- with pulling concepts a bunch of it remains
missing too. C++0x will help here and there though.
But we used C++ for much good ways before TMP was introduced. The
reference in the quite upward is '92? I recall Modern C++ Design and
pioneer articles around '98.
Actually, i think he has a very good point. C++ is neither for highlevel
applications (no garbage collection), nor really good for lowlevel
applications (too much hidden costs - just take C instead).
IMO that is pure bullshit.
I used C++ for both very high level things (creating libs/frameworks so the
"application" code could be matched to the specification directly. (and
NEVER needed GC for anything, RAII covered all my needs from the
beginning -- and anyone can easily install GC in need.
And used C++ for the lowest level too, writing embedded things.
Hidden costs? What that should be? The assembly code is exactly the same as
with the same functionality written in C. Or better.
But i still like it, because i'm a fanboi.
Shouldn't fanbois refrain from stating degrading comments that are not true?
;-)