Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 11:53:01 12/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2001 at 13:42:56, David Hanley wrote: >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. > Not true. The idea of generic programming is in certain aspects "old", but the device of a template and the way it is used in C++ is unique. Tell me where all the ways templates are used, exemplified in the STL, is from, if not C++. > >> >>>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. > Not moreso than other languages. I have seen as much bad code in SML and Lisp as I have in C++. >>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. > There are no superior languages. There are different languages for different tasks. I'm not trying to make the point here, that C++ is better than other languages (as you seem to try to do with other languages). I am saying that, sure, if you have a sloppy approach, SML will get you a prototype faster than C++ will. But you can get s good program with as good a design in C++ as in any other language, if you just use the language correctly. And of course, you will get all the advantages of C++ if you do so. Just as if you do it in SML, you will have certain other advantages. I am not saying C++ is better. You are saying C++ is worse. I say it isn't. >> >>>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. > The user interface? GC is not inherently better. GC has some advantages and some drawbacks. >> >>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. > I haven't made any "misstatements" about any languages. I have disagreed with you on certain points, and as you have done the same with me, you have made as many "misstatements" as I have. /David
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.