[sdiy] IN your mind, what is ....

[James R. Coplin]

The two languages are functionally equivalent since you can write a c++
compiler in c and a c compiler in c++. Pick what you like, each has distinct
advantages over the other depending on the project and the programmer. Keep
in mind that writing code is only 1 part of life cycle. Things like
maintainability, extensibility, etc. also must be considered. It is typical
of programmers to only focus on their piece of the pie and ignore the rest
to the detriment of all! (Note I'm speaking as a retired c/c++/you name it
coder/architect/project manager/cio type now turned Chinese historian)

James R. Coplin
***************
If anyone asks of my whereabouts,
simply tell them i've gone out the window
for a spot of tea and am not
expected back any time soon.
***************

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl [mailto:owner-synth-
> diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl] On Behalf Of Magnus Danielson
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 6:24 PM
> To: music.maker at gte.net
> Cc: synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> Subject: Re: [sdiy] IN your mind, what is ....
> 
> From: Scott Gravenhorst <music.maker at gte.net>
> Subject: Re: [sdiy] IN your mind, what is ....
> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:40:56 -0700
> Message-ID: <200402032240.i13Meud14134 at linux6.lan>
> 
> Scott,
> 
> > What I've been made to understand is that C++ protects the environment
> from
> > the programmer.  IMHO, that's absurd and falls right in line with the
> > "Microsoft Think-4-You" mentality.  What that says is that you can write
> crap
> > with C++ that won't usually break the machine...  well, maybe...
> 
> This is the misstake that has been applied to C++ from the early days,
> putting
> the responsibility onto the C++ compiler instead of taking the
> responsibility
> yourself. C++ as any OO-languague provides a toolbox which isn't (or parts
> of
> it didn't use to be) part of C (or other pre-OO imperative languague).
> This
> toolbox is at the best a refined way of saving yourself from yourself. It
> provides tools in order to do information hiding and many other things
> (which
> is one of the things Fredrick Brooks himself points out at one of his own
> errors in the original "Mythical Man Month" when reading the 25th
> anneversary
> edition) which can be good tools. However, even with a possibly larger
> toolbox
> doesn't mean that all these tools shall be applied all the time. There are
> problems which doesn't really fit in well in the OO-world to start with.
> The ability to do reuseable code in C++ has actually become even harder
> than it
> was in C, since a good C++ programmer needs to know more, and also needs a
> correlated knowledge, than a good C programmer needs to know. This is
> actually
> a bit paradoxial, but that's how it ends up being. So, when I am seeking
> to
> find out what I need to know in order to become a good C++ programmer (and
> BTW
> I know a number of things in C++ which I can give very good reasons for
> NOT to
> use at all or very restrictive). I tend to work kind of OO-oriented in C
> instead. I can be productive and make few errors in an environment that I
> know
> and know how to control. Oh, and it doesn't have much to do with putting
> dinner
> on the table for me.
> 
> > There is no substitute for thinking and hard work.
> 
> Exactly. You may or may not find OO-modeling actually usefull. It
> certainly
> not provides the holy grail and it never will. It may be an improvement
> for
> the moment, but we must look beyond that to find a better approximation to
> the
> holy grail.
> 
> Cheers,
> Magnus