3 ms·
> I disagree. Consider the Brainfuck argument. You can totally blame Brainfuck and its “paradigm” for detrimental consequences. That's a poorly put-together re
by arinlen 4y ago
> I disagree. Consider the Brainfuck argument. You can totally blame Brainfuck and its “paradigm” for detrimental consequences.
That's a poorly put-together red-herring. Brainfuck is not one of the leading production programming languages that has been used for decades to write all sorts of applications, from operating systems to web services and specially desktop applications, AAA games, and high-performance computing. Brainfuck is a gimmick "esoteric" programming language used as a challenge.
> My point is it’s easier to modularize and encapsulate properly with procedural or functional paradigms because they don’t force you to do that work before you start solving problems.
The thing is your point does not hold at all. It's trivial to modularize and encapsulate and even isolate components with C++. You only need to want to do it. If you don't want to modularize or encapsulate or isolate components then you get what you want. Don't blame the language for the software architecture you chose to adopt for your project.
- avmich 4y agoI think you miss the point. First you backtrack your generalization regarding languages, which makes one ask what other omitted features have to be present to rely on the statement. Second you're not supporting your claim "It's trivial to modularize and encapsulate and even isolate components with C++. You only need to want to do it." It directly contradicts the observation that programs, when written, are often found to be designed incorrectly, and it's important that the language would support enough their recomposition. Just wanting to make a good architecture doesn't make it right all by itself, sometimes you have to change already existing things, and how easy it is has a lot to do with the language.