4 ms·

I guess we learned not to do it again.

• Paul_S 12y ago
  Not to do what exactly?
  • cratermoon 12y ago
    Take a very low-level system programming language, add some OO syntax, then have someone who is avowedly anti-OO* add generics and templates, and then unleash it on hordes of junior programmers. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stepanov#Criticism_of_OOP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stepanov#Criticism_of...
    • Paul_S 12y ago
      None of these is inherently wrong and "unleashing a programming language on junior programmers" is a a bit of a cliche that can be levelled at any language. I get to maintain some nasty c++ code at work that was two decades in the making under a succession of (at least) two separate teams and is some freakshow of cautionary tales with occasional comments in Russian for comedy relief. And I still think c++ is one of the greats and will be around (and alive) in 30 years' time and I'm apprehensive of people painting it as some cautionary tale.
      • cratermoon 12y ago
        Individually they are defensible. In combination, the attempt was full of leaky abstractions that led to violations of the Principle of Least Surprise. In addition, going to a given shop, you never know exactly which subset of all the possible C++ subsets are in use. In that sense, there's no single language called "C++". But yes, I admit the 'unleashed on junior programmers' was a bit of a cheap shot.