Author: David Hanley
Date: 10:42:56 12/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2001 at 12:56:50, David Rasmussen wrote: >On December 11, 2001 at 11:47:19, David Hanley wrote: > >>Yes. C++ is assembler with objects. > >Not at all. Templates and generic programming alone is a revolution, that is >unique to C++, No, both were around long before C++, and i'd even say that the c++ implementations of them are quite poor. > >>I've been on many commercial projects using >>C/C++ and i'm aware of what happens. A lot of time ends up getting spent on >>things like finding corrupt pointers, trying to figure out who deallocates what, >>etc. >> > >With bad programming, all languages can fail. Of course. But c++ encourages bad programming. >But I agree that minute details >can sometimes take up a lot of the development time. Still, it is not an >inherent feature of C++. One can always encapsulate data in very safe types >(smart pointers, bounds checking simple types etc.). But when you do that, you get a slower, more bloated version of the superior languages. No point. > >>built in to help keep programs bug free. Things like garbage collection alone >>buy you quite a bit. >> > >Sure, but the GC is not important for chess programs, usually. There is seldom a >lot of memory allocation going on. True. I am talking abotu programming in general though, and there's a lot besides GC. Still, it makes the user interface easier. > >Maybe you're not listenling hard enough. Either way, you don't really know >anything about how much I now about various languages. Well, i do, seeing as you're making misstatements about them. dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.