[Beowulf] Stroustrup regarding multicore
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Robert G. Brown rgb at phy.duke.eduThu Aug 28 06:00:00 PDT 2008
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Stroustrup regarding multicore
- Next message: [Beowulf] Stroustrup regarding multicore
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > Ed Hill <ed at eh3.com> writes: >> So, I'm curious about what you consider "legitimate" >> and why. And please understand -- I'm not trying to start arguments or >> change any opinions about language choices [ other than perhaps my own >> :-) ]. > > It is pretty straightforward. C++ is a big mess -- the language > specification is too large for me to fully remember, it is easy to > produce constructs that are very difficult to understand. Things like > operator overloading encourage people to write unreadable code -- you > can examine a short section of a program and not realize that all the > familiar operators you think are doing one thing are doing unexpected > things. The language is a maintenance programmer's nightmare, and most > of the time, programs are being maintained, not developed. Ya, Ed, the satire I posted a link to is a satire, but the things it satirizes are real issues and recapitulates a lot of what Perry just said. It is fairly difficult to keep track of all the structs and typedefs in a complicated C program. People tend to write code with a proliferation of includes, variables with a limited scope, structs in one include that include structs defined in another. And this isn't necessarily bad stylistically -- complex problems are complex, and big code evolves, it isn't topdown designed (or at least, it may be topdown designed "once" or even "twice" but in between it evolves). However, this does make maintenance of the code or working on somebody else's code very difficult if one lets this sort of thing get out of control -- in C. The problem is, I dunno, squared in C++? As Perry describes. On the other hand there is the STL, which is interestingly more often touted as a C++ advantage than "objects" per se, probably for good reason (as C has objects, but it doesn't really have the STL). >> If I had to sum it up in one line it would be: "I'm use C++ a lot because >> I just can't seem to find a superior replacement for it." >> >> And I'm still (half-heart-edly) looking for replacements... And obviously, you don't consider C alone to be a viable replacement, which is fine. > That's the reason many people end up using it, including (sometimes) me. > > Many smart people use C++, few smart people love C++. :-) rgb -- Robert G. Brown Phone(cell): 1-919-280-8443 Duke University Physics Dept, Box 90305 Durham, N.C. 27708-0305 Web: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb Book of Lilith Website: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Lilith/Lilith.php Lulu Bookstore: http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=877977
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Stroustrup regarding multicore
- Next message: [Beowulf] Stroustrup regarding multicore
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
