3 ms·
There really wasn't much in terms of "good and bad" overall, just "good and bad" for Linux. At the end he says (paraphrased)"I'm not saying this is for every pr
by sophacles 16y ago
There really wasn't much in terms of "good and bad" overall, just "good and bad" for Linux. At the end he says (paraphrased)"I'm not saying this is for every project, but if you are going for more than C, skip C++ and go for <list of features that ruby qualifies for>".
- loup-vaillant 16y agoTu put it more plainly, he said that for any possible job, C++ is never the best tool for it. ∀job, ∃L | L(job) > C++(job) This, plus stating that C++ is very complicated amounts to say that C++ is bad. Because even if C++ is "good enough" for a wide range of jobs, it's complexity makes it longer to learn than several, simpler, more specialized languages. My personal opinion is that C++ is best only when legacy code is involved, or when the team just won't learn other languages. I can understand them. Learning C++ is such an investment that they are more likely to "throw good learning after bad", or may think that learning another languages will be as difficult as learning C++. I may change my mind when I bother to look at LLVM or V8. Perhaps.