3 ms·
I completely agree, the interviewer is hardly impartial: he pushes Bjarne to admit what he'd like. Although I can't help thinking we have all been here before
by acg 17y ago
I completely agree, the interviewer is hardly impartial: he pushes Bjarne to admit what he'd like.
Although I can't help thinking we have all been here before. C++ despite using it for a over a decade still feels like a research project, the thing is Bjarne never admits failure in anything C++. I can't help thinking the build-a-better-C, by providing generic programming and OO hasn't met it's goal. C for all its faults is beautifully simple. Where C++ after almost 20 years still needs "fixes" to make it better. To me better is not adding more compiler syntax (that most earlier generic/oo languages have done without). Programmers, even good ones, need to get increasingly bogged down on how to instruct their compiler to do the correct thing. Most programmers I know want to get the solution finished, and aren't interesting on how to be clever with the compiler. This trying to shoehorn objects onto C seems mad considering all that's needed to interoperate with C is the ability to support C linkage. Why not just design a better C?
- dkarl 17y agoBjarne never admits failure in anything C++. I don't know if he has ever used the word "failure," but he has admitted missteps and shortcomings in C++. "I think I know more about the problems with C++ than just about anyone." I think he is less negative about C++ than people expect because his definition of the problem to be solved is extremely broad. It includes all existing C and C++ code, experienced programmers, new learners, diverse implementations, many hardware and OS platforms, stakeholder politics, and standardization logistics. He would probably make the list two or three times as long. Even so, he hasn't always got his way when it comes to C++, so it hardly needs to be said that he thinks there were mistakes made along the way.