4 ms·

Any style of programming can look like a mistake if you take it to crazy extremes. I find header/template C++ programming works very well provided you do it in

Any style of programming can look like a mistake if you take it to crazy extremes. I find header/template C++ programming works very well provided you do it in moderation and keep things simple. Remember the STL is complicated because it tries to be super generic, and it tries to be super generic because it's a library so it tries to cater for all possible uses. If you're writing a program instead of a library, you can make things orders of magnitude simpler because you only have to provide what you need, not everything any programmer on Earth might need.

zanny 14y ago
For other examples of crazy extremes, see : Java Swing using anonymous classes to 10 or more depths to represent callbacks because OOP and inheritance > all. Haskell having one file IO operation a thousand feet below the surface of a program "un-purifying" the entire call stack with side effects because pure functional is king. Trying to implement any generic anything in C, because in procedural having template or inheritance based polymorphic behavior is crazy, so you end up with 5 million ways to write readNumber() for every numeric type ever. So go figure, procedural, meta, functional and OOP all go completely deep end when you try to kitchen sink them as the be all end all solution to all problems and woes.
- eru 14y ago
  > Haskell having one file IO operation a thousand feet below the surface of a program "un-purifying" the entire call stack with side effects because pure functional is king. And that's the way it should be. (Refator your programme, if you want to keep the other functions pure. But it is a Good Thing (TM), that you can not hide your IO if you pile on enough layers.) Haskell has other problems, though.