4 ms·

It's not about C holdouts being unreasonable at all. They're only mentioned in the first three paragraphs of the article. The article isn't about C or C++. It's

• haberman 9y ago
  > It's not about C holdouts being unreasonable at all. They're only mentioned in the first three paragraphs of the article. That's not true; they are mentioned several times in the first big bullet list. Also the Dan Saks talk he discusses several times throughout the article is specifically about talking to C programmers about C++. But regardless of whether he is speaking about something specific (C vs. C++) or in the abstract (rational vs. irrational people), he is making the same flawed presumption: that certain choices (like C++) are unquestionably better than other choices (like C), and that if people can't see this then the only possible explanation is some kind of cognitive impairment. The whole argument presumes that the author is smarter and more rational than other people. He might not even realize he is doing this, but other people can most definitely pick up on it.
  • jordigh 9y ago
    > The whole argument presumes that the author is smarter Aha, so that's why everyone is posting comments about how terrible C++ is. The author is coming across like an ass, so we must attack that which he appears to be defending: C++. I don't really pick up on the bad attitude (probably because I have it too), and I don't really care that much to defend C++ or C. I went through the article, noted a few references to whatever psychological studies were there, and decided to read those later. I don't really care if C or C++ is "better". I barely use either anymore.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]