24 May
2010
24 May
'10
1:14 p.m.
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:58 AM, torbenh <torbenh(a)gmx.de> wrote:
well... for me, saying c++, is saying boost. boost and
modern c++ is what
makes c++ better than java.
java is a pretty great language nowadays (with generics and annotators
and stuff). my big problem with java is that its stdlib is really a big mess.
I always thought the big chunk of new stuff added in Java 1.5 was a
really bad idea. That took a compact, comprehensible language that
lacked a number of convenient features but at least had a single
"school of practice", and gave it the capacity for the same sort of
fragmentation as you have in C++. But I haven't done Java development
in earnest since that stuff became widespread, so I don't know whether
that's really happened in practice.
Reading a language is (for most projects) more important than writing
it. You yourself took the jackdmp code (in C++) and ported it back to
good old C because it was written "from the wrong school of C++" and
you found C easier to work with. Jackdmp is not exactly weird code --
it's written rather like pre-1.5 Java -- but its C++ is just not the
same C++ as you use. Similarly, for someone like me who has used Qt
for many years, Boost has always seemed largely superfluous and the
language that for you "is C++" is for me something a little bit alien.
Is it possible to write C++ in such a way that every competent C++
developer is happy to work with the results without some sort of
re-education?
Chris