:: Re: [DNG] Why C/C++ ?
Página Inicial
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autor: o1bigtenor
Data:  
Para: zeitgeisteater
CC: Hendrik Boom, dng
Assunto: Re: [DNG] Why C/C++ ?
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 8:56 PM zeitgeisteater via Dng <dng@???>
wrote:

> I haven't read much of any of this, but will respond succinctly to the
> title.
>
> Why c/c++? Control. I can make very powerful type agnostic constructs that
> optimize very heavily for performance. I can also implement my own memory
> safety constructs as a matter of regimented course (internal design policy)
> e.g. to catch common mistakes that might happen at the higher level
> invocations... effectively building my own safety mechanisms into the
> language.
>


This is the original OP here.
I asked what made c/C++ so wonderful that one MUST use it.
I think you're perhaps the first person who actually gave a clear answer.
So you like these 2 languages because the give you control.

Except I just want to get the job done - - - I don't want to learn things
which give me perhaps umpteen different way to "blow my own leg off"
!!!!!!!!

>
> Is it more work? Yes. Is it easier to blow my own leg off with the
> complete freedom? Yes. Am I willing to outsource these elements to a third
> party? No.
>


In my working life I have had to learn that a done well job is vastly
preferable to an excellent or even a perfect job.
In point of fact - - - I remember reading an issue of
Byte magazine where they talked about mathematically proven correct
constructs in programming which I believe would be perhaps impossible to do
in either c or C++.
As I would prefer to get the job done - - - I guess that I'm just weird and
perhaps not of a typical 'software engineer' type mold although given the
plethora of bugs
in much of the software I run into - - - - well - - - I dunno!

>
> Am I Luddite? I have embraced certain elements of the newer c++ standards,
> so I don't believe so. Features I find particularly useful in newer c++
> versions are "constant evaluation functions" (a function that runs at
> compile time to produce a constant) and compiler hints to sort/prevent
> collisions with operator precedence (e.g. "explicit" keyword).
>
>

I would be perhaps labeled as a luddite myself but then I see technology as
a tool rather than my master.
Have found that technology has over the last 15 years become less and less
controllable largely due to
the choices made by others on my behalf.

Regards