3 ms·
I didn't assert Bjarne doesn't have a clue how to design a language (and I can list features of C++ that are brilliant). I didn't provide examples of "design pe
by rootlocus 5y ago
I didn't assert Bjarne doesn't have a clue how to design a language (and I can list features of C++ that are brilliant). I didn't provide examples of "design perfection", I provided examples of design principles I think better manage complexity.
I asserted CFront was a mess of ad-hoc features implemented in a rush prioritized by personal hubris. I asserted Bjarne didn't consider how much complexity was piling up and didn't listen to critics. I've provided you with quotes from his own book supporting this.
Your every reply was condescending whataboutism, my friend. Can you provide counter arguments why CFront was a beautifully thoughtfully designed language where features and complexity was considered and debated before being implemented? Because all your other arguments are just strawmen.
And I would really appreciate it if you could use a language that at least tries to use a constructive tone that adds value to the debate, instead of the snarky sarcasm one-liners. I don't care much for this white horse, Bjarne defending attitude.
- pjmlp 5y agoI suppose you have reviewed the source code of Go and Zig compilers with the same attention to design quality then.
- rootlocus 5y agoI've actually watched Andrew Kelley stream implementing and designing the Zig compiler and I've been following the discussions on language features. But this is just another whataboutist strawman.