4 ms·
> One thing I highly disagree with in your statement is this: " C++ was about as close to excellence as we could’ve hoped for." It’s fine to disagree, but it s
by ovao 4y ago
> One thing I highly disagree with in your statement is this: " C++ was about as close to excellence as we could’ve hoped for."
It’s fine to disagree, but it seems mildly disingenuous to omit all the qualifiers I (very deliberately and intentionally) prefaced that statement with when you do so. In that sense, you’re actually disagreeing with an opinion I don’t actually hold.
- fckgnad 4y agoI omitted out of brevity. But ok, I'll put it in: >All things considered, for the time, given the paradigms we understood to be effective, and for the value within the design space, C++ was about as close to excellence as we could’ve hoped for. It didn’t replace C, nor was it meant to, but for its purpose it was a great success. I disagree with this entire statement. It's not even close to excellence even given all the deliberate and intentional qualifiers you put around it. I believe that when I re-clarify my comment in this context it becomes clear that I am in totality disagreeing with your statement. I think C++ became popular due to luck in the same way javascript came to dominate the frontend. I believe there could've been a number of possible better alternative outcomes if luck would have been different.