Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #7252

Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++

Show all headers | View raw

Le 29/06/11 22:20, Juha Nieminen a écrit :
> jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net>  wrote:
>> Memory footprint. C++ uses up a LOT of memory.
>
>    I haven't noticed such a difference.
>
>    (In fact, there are many cases where C consumes more memory than the
> equivalent C++ version because often C++ allows the compiler to perform
> optimizations that the C compiler cannot do.)

Sure, but I was speaking about HUMAN memory, who cares about computer
memory when you can buy megabytes for a dime a dozen?

The problem with my brain is that its memory is not extensible. Trying
to understand and memorize the specifications for overloaded function 
calls in the C++ specs goes for PAGES AND PAGES, impossible for a brain
to swallow and digest that without a severe indigestion.

There arrives a point (that C++ has already passed beyond) where
there is no brain in the world, not even the one of Stroustrup,
that is able to understand 100% of the language. See the "concepts"
debacle.

This means that in practice NO ONE understands the language he/she is
using in full. The language has become something beyond the capabilities
of mere people and only a compiler can understand it.

I have seen more and more posts where somebody asks here:

"Why doesn't this compile"?

And the answers are:

o Compiles in MSVC
o Doesn't compile in gcc
o Comeau accepts it...

without ANYBODY even trying to argue about WHY the construct
in question is right or wrong. Nobody knows any more.

Everybody knows what I am speaking about  yet this doesn't seem to be
seen as a problem and the committee keeps adding and adding features
(lambdas, etc) without any person trying to stop that trend, as if
"progress" in software construction implies always MORE complexity
and MORE complexity without any limit.

Well there are limits, and those limits are set by our brain. In the
last resort, mere PEOPLE are using this language, and they just are
now unable to understand ALL the implications of what they are
doing when they write any serious program.

The consequences are that C++ software is "brittle", in the sense that
a small change somewhere, that everybody thought it would be harmless
produces a whole series of catastrophes in other, unrelated parts
of the software.

It is not time to reflect about this problem?

Thanks for your input.

jacob

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Why C is vastly superior to C++ jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-28 14:12 +0200
  Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-28 14:15 +0200
  Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-06-28 10:02 -0700
    Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-28 19:14 +0200
  Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-06-29 20:20 +0000
    Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-29 23:04 +0200
      Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 09:45 +1200
      Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-06-30 05:08 +0000
        Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-06-30 06:10 +0000
          Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 08:42 +0200
            Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 21:08 +1200
              Templates (was Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-06-30 15:03 +0000
                Re: Templates (was Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-06-30 16:40 +0000
                Re: Templates (was Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++) "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-06-30 22:06 -0500
                Re: Templates (was Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++) "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-06-30 22:05 -0500
            Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-06-30 10:45 +0000
              Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 16:09 -0700
            Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 00:39 -0700
      Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-06-30 06:32 +0000
      Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-06-30 10:49 -0700
      Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-01 10:20 +0200
        Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-02 08:14 +0200
  Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 23:56 -0700
  Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-07-07 16:39 +0000
    Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 18:55 +0200
      Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 16:48 -0500
        Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-08 01:29 +0200
          Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 19:13 -0500
      Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-07-08 06:57 +0000

csiph-web