3 ms·
You are right that knowning low-level detail of a language is great and I have badly explained what I meant to say in my first post (Mostly because I'm a terrib
by d0m 17y ago
You are right that knowning low-level detail of a language is great and I have badly explained what I meant to say in my first post (Mostly because I'm a terribly bad english speaker). Here is what I meant to say: C++ is archaic for a lot of reasons; just read effective C++ of any book and you'll find subtile bugs that you need to avoid.
My point is: I don't say whether C++ is bad or not but when you compare it to scheme or python, for instance, you clearly see that there're some archaic parts. Some programmers only know C++ and have closed mind on everything else. If they start arguing about the glory of those "c++ design error", it's a huge hint that it's a C++-only programmer.
- pmjordan 17y agoOK, I'll quite happily agree with that. I'm generally wary of people who won't venture outside one language (one-trick ponies). I personally try to avoid using C++ except where it's clearly the best choice, mostly because I used it as my main language for the best part of a decade (high performance computing and game development). The thing is, C++ is still possibly the best choice in that narrow segment where C alone is too tedious but a high-level language won't work for some reason.