Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #6110 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-30 20:11 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-12-30 20:11 +0000 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.programming
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Here is my conclusion about C++ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:11 +0000
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 20:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Here is my conclusion about C++ |
| Message-ID | <n61dlb$ru2$1@dont-email.me> |
On 30/12/15 23:00, Ramine wrote: > Hello, > > > I think C++ is good for reatime safety critical systems, because: The choice of language is far less important than the choice of programmer. I would choose a programmer who is capable of rational thought and who is able to construct a sound technical argument. I would not choose one who posts the same correction to a Usenet newsgroup four times in three minutes. Nor would I choose a programmer who thinks that 'using namespace std;' is good C++. Nor would I choose a programmer who is unable to interact properly with other technical people, or a programmer who thinks it's good practice to place the response to an article /above/ the article to which it is replying. I'm fussy like that. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Back to top | Article view | comp.programming
csiph-web