3 ms·
For me it was the blatant rejection of C++ without any further discussion. C++ has a lot of baggage from C, but it also sports powerful metaprogramming, even th
by gmueckl 7y ago
For me it was the blatant rejection of C++ without any further discussion. C++ has a lot of baggage from C, but it also sports powerful metaprogramming, even though that is flawed (the necessity of SFINAE speaks volumes...). There are newer languages that improve on that a lot. The author doesn't even care to mention them by name.
To me, it is pretty clear that the author has a very specific world view, probably defined by the set of problems he's solving. I can't quite tell what that perspective is. But this makes his claims a lot less universal than he admits.
- kick 7y agoYou just acknowledged that C++ was not the perfect programming language in your (rather biased for it) comment.
- gmueckl 7y agoThat is not what I wrote. Dismissing C++ summarily as this article does skips over a few points that are worth talking about. Generics and templates are not discussed. Memory management approaches of different languages are not discussed. The world of programming languages is huge. The author seems to ignore most of it, yet claims to search for a "perfect language" while clinging to the nonsensical illusion that a single languagecan be perfect forall use cases.