Re: [dev] [RFC] Design of a vim like text editor

From: Alexander S. <alex0player_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:22:34 +0400

Oh, another C vs C++ holy crusade, it seems.
I'd like to note here that while object-oriented progamming can be
done in C, doing polymorphism, for example, is a pain in the ass;
furthermore, syntactic sugar and an ability to write e. g.
win.repaint(rect) instead of window_repaint_rectangle(win, &rect)
actually *increases* the readability of code when you have to deal
with several lines of that fashion in a row. Syntactic sugar, say what
you want about it, tends to reduce noise, as does language support for
certain powerful programming practices.
On 17 Sep 2014 11:04 GMT +3, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
<k0ga_AT_shike2.com> wrote:
> If you want to use the type
> system to ensure the correctness of your code, instead of writing
> good code then you have an understanding problem about programming.
That's an odd thing to hear from a professional like you. Making
mistakes isn't about "writing good code" (what does this even mean per
se) or not, it's about the fact that humans are not infallible. If
someone knows their own mistakes and wants to use the benefits of
proper type system (which C unfortunately lacks altogether and C++
attempts to fix the C mess are, while valiant, broken as well), you
cannot possibly condemn him for that.
The fact that in C++, you have to use ad-hoc structs for that instead
of just defining a new numeric type is, of course, another sad topic
altogether.

TLDR: C++ does many things to simplify a programmer's life, and you
cannot deny that. But it is also undeniable that it does them all
poorly, with rather obscure semantics even.

2014-09-17 1:16 GMT+04:00 FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>:
>> Can't we have a civilized discussion ?
> Is Maxime a male or female name?
...I wonder if you find your own question rude or not.
Received on Wed Sep 17 2014 - 13:22:34 CEST