Subject: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad) From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1997/05/11 Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++ Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Alexander Stepanov -> Thant Tessman | You win. I promise never to post a single netnews message again. The | medium belongs to people like you. the first article you responded to in this thread was mine, where I said that I thought the Standard Template Library was "remarkably good work", but also a "magnificient waste" because it is done in C++. I implied that I thought the ideas were great but the choice of giving them concrete shape in C++ was unfortunate. however, I realize that I don't understand your ideas. I also don't buy that C++ is the only language in which you could implement them, to the extent that I do understand them. finally, I firmly believe that when something can be done only in C++, that proves it must be flawed at the core. I have programmed in lots of languages over the past 16 years, and I see _nothing_ in C++ that invites me to use this language, not even the Standard Template Library. all I have ever learned from all of my mistakes and my research tells me that C++ is a language that should only be used by the kind of people who invent stupid ways to avoid hurting themselves when doing something wrong instead of learning to do something right -- the kind of people who need to be led to water to realize they must drink and then don't understand that any water could do equally well, but cling to the same way they were led in the past. I went through the first C++ draft that was rejected by conscientious international standards consultants in a large number of countries, and I have spent a fair amount of time with the second C++ draft. C++ was the first language that managed to turn my stomach. (the second was Perl.) I can't program in C++ because the urge to fix the stupid language is so overpowering that I can't concentrate on any actual problem. I thought the Standard Template Library would be a redeeming quality in this refuse of a language, but if it is so broken that it only fits with the C++ model of the world and of computation in general, it's like finding a 1000-carat diamond in a heap of nuclear waste -- only by keeping sufficient distance can one appreciate it. my only experience with the Standard Template Library has been its specification, which, unlike the rest of the junk, is actually readable. (if you wrote the text of those parts of the standard, you should still be commended for its high quality and clarity.) but, really, if you can _only_ do it in C++, all of my experience tells me that that means you're doing something very seriously wrong. if you wish to publish a paper on this work (which I would eagerly read), please don't tie it to C++, but show what it needs to be implemented, so others can implement it for you in other languages, and please be open to that, or so other languages can be created without the crud that permeates C++. e.g., a language based on the Standard Template Library might actually be a good language. as has already been noted, programming in C++ with and without templates is like programming in two different languages. there's no need to keep the moronic aspects of C++ if the ideas in the Standard Template Library have significant merit on their own. [cc'ed since you promise never to post. I'm not sure that means you're not going to read news anymore, either.] #\Erik -- if we work harder, will obsolescence be farther ahead or closer?