3 ms·

It just sounds like someone who couldn't handle C++ whining and making a bunch of blanket statements without really having any proper understanding. I agree th

It just sounds like someone who couldn't handle C++ whining and making a bunch of blanket statements without really having any proper understanding. I agree that some of the features such as lambdas can use to hard to track bugs (lifetime issues) and difficult to follow code when abused. When used nicely though they can lead to simple, elegant and straightforward code (anyone who tried to use the STL algorithms before lambdas knows what a pita it was most of the time). Bottom line, if your code base is a mess don't blame the tool. Blame the programmers.

userbinator 10y ago
Bottom line, if your code base is a mess don't blame the tool. Blame the programmers. The problem is the attitude towards these new features that naturally leads to programmers abusing them, building overabstracted complex bloated behemoths to accomplish the simplest of tasks. I'd say the vast majority of programmers, for some reason, seem to have an appetite for complexity --- they tend to feel that overly complicating things somehow makes their code better, especially if they can use some new shiny fancy features in the process. I don't think like that so I don't know exactly why that is the case, but perhaps it has to do with the feeling of accomplishment from having written something "big", solving simple problems with complex solutions. Instead, I'm the opposite --- I like solving complex problems with simple solutions, which means code that is usually very straightforward and only occasionally makes use of some more advanced features of the language, when it helps simplify the solution.
- to3m 10y ago
  A common assumption among C++ programmers seems to be that if an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, the value of a ton of prevention must scale up similarly. But a ton of anything is too much weight for most projects to handle.
coldtea 10y ago
>It just sounds like someone who couldn't handle C++ whining As if you have so more experience and skills than him in the language? He's not some newbie trying C++ for the first time... >Bottom line, if your code base is a mess don't blame the tool. Blame the programmers. If the tool is a programming language, then its syntax, modularization and other features absolutely affect the code being a mess or not. Tools as not passive, they influence how we use them and what we can do with them.
- ensiferum 10y ago
  >>As if you have so more experience and skills than him in the language? He's not some newbie trying C++ for the first time... Not much experience. Just 15 years writing C++. >>If the tool is a programming language, then its syntax, modularization and other features absolutely affect the code being a mess or not. In any language there's the idiomatic way of doing things. There are designs to which the language lends itself nicely and there are designs to which it doesn't lend itself. There are badly written code in any language. It's up to the programmer to choose designs and paradigms that work well with the language.

userbinator 10y ago

Bottom line, if your code base is a mess don't blame the tool. Blame the programmers. The problem is the attitude towards these new features that naturally leads to programmers abusing them, building overabstracted complex bloated behemoths to accomplish the simplest of tasks. I'd say the vast majority of programmers, for some reason, seem to have an appetite for complexity --- they tend to feel that overly complicating things somehow makes their code better, especially if they can use some new shiny fancy features in the process. I don't think like that so I don't know exactly why that is the case, but perhaps it has to do with the feeling of accomplishment from having written something "big", solving simple problems with complex solutions. Instead, I'm the opposite --- I like solving complex problems with simple solutions, which means code that is usually very straightforward and only occasionally makes use of some more advanced features of the language, when it helps simplify the solution.

to3m 10y ago
A common assumption among C++ programmers seems to be that if an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, the value of a ton of prevention must scale up similarly. But a ton of anything is too much weight for most projects to handle.

coldtea 10y ago

>It just sounds like someone who couldn't handle C++ whining As if you have so more experience and skills than him in the language? He's not some newbie trying C++ for the first time... >Bottom line, if your code base is a mess don't blame the tool. Blame the programmers. If the tool is a programming language, then its syntax, modularization and other features absolutely affect the code being a mess or not. Tools as not passive, they influence how we use them and what we can do with them.

ensiferum 10y ago
>>As if you have so more experience and skills than him in the language? He's not some newbie trying C++ for the first time... Not much experience. Just 15 years writing C++. >>If the tool is a programming language, then its syntax, modularization and other features absolutely affect the code being a mess or not. In any language there's the idiomatic way of doing things. There are designs to which the language lends itself nicely and there are designs to which it doesn't lend itself. There are badly written code in any language. It's up to the programmer to choose designs and paradigms that work well with the language.