5 ms·

"now proven false... that large C++ programs were more maintainable than large C programs" [citation needed] "You write real C applications completely differe

"now proven false... that large C++ programs were more maintainable than large C programs" [citation needed] "You write real C applications completely differently than you write C++ applications, a fact few C++ advocates admit or understand" Actually I would assume C++ advocates would be the first to assert this was true... otherwise, why C++?

gte910h 16y ago
>>now proven false, according to Code Complete 2 as well as lectures I've seen at Georgia Tech >[citation needed] That's a citation... >"You write real C applications completely differently than you write C++ applications, a fact few C++ advocates admit or understand" Perhaps, but this article again goes on about C being a subset of C++, which besides being somewhat untrue, it also means he's implying correct C is a subset of correct C++. It isn't. You structure things completely differently, and most C++ programmers have never written large scale C programs before. Other citations: http://archive.oredev.org/download/18.5bd7fa0510edb4a8ce4800019898/Jack_Ganssle_-_Embedded_Failures_2.pdf http://archive.oredev.org/download/18.5bd7fa0510edb4a8ce4800... Slide 21 The particular lecture was in 2000 around July by Dr. Mark Guzdial which was citing other research which I don't remember over a decade later.
- helmut_hed 16y ago
  It's a citation, but not of the right type. You say it has been proven false that large C++ programs were more maintainable than large C programs. Such a proof would be quite extraordinary, to say the least. There is a vast difference between a strongly held opinion that this is true and a proof. Your proposed citations: something in Code Complete (where? what does he say exactly?), lectures you've seen at Georgia Tech (which? where? what is claimed?), and a slide showing that in some codebase (again, which?) a given C++ bug took longer to fix than a given C bug (what was the sample set? how many bugs in each language were there overall? was it the same program implemented in both languages, or something else? were they the same programmers?). None of these things are citations of a proof. Listen, I don't doubt there are some good arguments against C++. But to claim something is proven is a very strong claim indeed, and not IMO supported by the evidence you've cited. Can we say, instead, that the advantages of C++ are "contested"? Or "debatable"? Or that some C programs are more maintainable than some similar, but different C++ programs by different authors? I could agree with that...

gte910h 16y ago

>>now proven false, according to Code Complete 2 as well as lectures I've seen at Georgia Tech >[citation needed] That's a citation... >"You write real C applications completely differently than you write C++ applications, a fact few C++ advocates admit or understand" Perhaps, but this article again goes on about C being a subset of C++, which besides being somewhat untrue, it also means he's implying correct C is a subset of correct C++. It isn't. You structure things completely differently, and most C++ programmers have never written large scale C programs before. Other citations: http://archive.oredev.org/download/18.5bd7fa0510edb4a8ce4800019898/Jack_Ganssle_-_Embedded_Failures_2.pdf http://archive.oredev.org/download/18.5bd7fa0510edb4a8ce4800... Slide 21 The particular lecture was in 2000 around July by Dr. Mark Guzdial which was citing other research which I don't remember over a decade later.

helmut_hed 16y ago
It's a citation, but not of the right type. You say it has been proven false that large C++ programs were more maintainable than large C programs. Such a proof would be quite extraordinary, to say the least. There is a vast difference between a strongly held opinion that this is true and a proof. Your proposed citations: something in Code Complete (where? what does he say exactly?), lectures you've seen at Georgia Tech (which? where? what is claimed?), and a slide showing that in some codebase (again, which?) a given C++ bug took longer to fix than a given C bug (what was the sample set? how many bugs in each language were there overall? was it the same program implemented in both languages, or something else? were they the same programmers?). None of these things are citations of a proof. Listen, I don't doubt there are some good arguments against C++. But to claim something is proven is a very strong claim indeed, and not IMO supported by the evidence you've cited. Can we say, instead, that the advantages of C++ are "contested"? Or "debatable"? Or that some C programs are more maintainable than some similar, but different C++ programs by different authors? I could agree with that...