3 ms·

C++ was built entirely for its creator to use. Depending on how you take that, it could mean that either 1) PG is wrong about C++ and it's an okay language, or

by Rusky 16y ago

C++ was built entirely for its creator to use. Depending on how you take that, it could mean that either 1) PG is wrong about C++ and it's an okay language, or 2) PG is wrong about language design in this case and people can design bad languages for themselves. I think it's the first one- C++ is a solid language for what it's good for, which is very different from what Java or Lisp or Python are good for. C++ and all its techniques (beyond just being a "better C") can be used in place of C perfectly well.

technomancy 16y ago
> C++ was built entirely for its creator to use. He didn't say "languages built for their creators are good", he said "good languages are built for their creators."
- Rusky 16y ago
  He said "The good languages have been those that were designed for their own creators: C, Perl, Smalltalk, Lisp." To me that implies that /the/ good languages were /(most of/all) those/ that were designed for their own creators. Worse, he said "Historically, languages designed for other people to use have been bad: Cobol, PL/I, Pascal, Ada, C++." He explicitly included C++ in the list of languages designed for other people.