Re: weeding out c++ keywords from sys/sys

Gary Jennejohn schrieb:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:44:40 +0000
> Bruce Simpson <bms_at_incunabulum.net> wrote:
> 
>> Gary Jennejohn wrote:
>> ...
>>> It isn't exactly confidence building that all the links on this page
>>> are invalid.
>>>   
>> I was able to access all of the links on that page without problems from 
>> archive.org.
>> The original content has moved, this seems to be due to a 
>> re-organisation within the university concerned.
>> Can you mention exactly which links were invalid for you?
>>
> 
> Every one of them.  Didn't think to try the wayback machine.
> 
>> You personally may not be writing systems to run fast and low-level in 
>> C++, but I can think of at least 3 people I know personally who have 
>> done and continue to do so. Given, they are folk who have spent a long 
>> time learning C++ -- the tool has a steep learning curve, and Bjarne 
>> Stroustrup himself would no doubt be the first to admit this.
>>
> 
> OT: Actually it has a flat learning curve which implies a longer time
> span.  However, most people use steep incorrectly in this context, which
> I always find irksome.
> 
> I've used C++ and hated it - mostly because the customer who required
> it had the most screwed up ideas regarding how to develop the
> application.  He made the mistake of hiring an external "expert" to
> come up with classes, etc.  The "expert" had no idea what he was doing
> in the context of the project and the customer eventually went belly
> up as a result.

This is no argument against C++. Just replace "C++" by any other 
language and later "classes" by some language feature of this language. 
This is an argument against idiots who have no clue but get paid lots of 
money and even bigger idiots paying them. I've seen abysmal code in 
Fortran, C, C++, Basic ...

> I personally see no benefit in using C++ in the kernel, but don't let
> my opinion stop progress from happening.  I certainly have no intention
> of ever using it myself.