3 ms·
"Less harmful alternatives" seems in many cases to be "Exotic technologies hardly used by anyone, simply unusable in any serious environment". In some cases, co
by xroche 8y ago
"Less harmful alternatives" seems in many cases to be "Exotic technologies hardly used by anyone, simply unusable in any serious environment". In some cases, comically wrong: C as a better alternative to C++ ? Did I totally miss the obvious satirical nature of the page ?
- xamuel 8y agoC is a better alternative to C++ for many applications. If it weren't, it wouldn't still be so widely used.
- xroche 8y agoIt's still used today because (1) of historical code and (2) the fact many people are fluent with it (including me). But this is a terrible languages in most cases.
- xamuel 8y agoC is relatively simple, C++ is so complex practically no-one understands all of it. Many C++ features are "OOP kool-aid" and do more harm than good (if people would just realize you can pass around pointers to C struct's, which is all the "object orientation" necessary for 99% of the software in the world)
- self_awareness 8y agoYou can do in C++ everything you can do in C. You don't need to use C++-specific stuff. Also, using your logic, C constructs are nothing more than just assembly with more overhead. Why not just use assembly instead? Answering this question will probably answer your question about OOP stuff.
- MrEfficiency 8y agoThey probably mean in places that C or C++ would be used. Embedded systems should be made 'simple' and C++ is the opposite of that. But I agree with your comment. I found the alternatives equally as harmful, especially as they have a smaller community.