Anti C++ sentiment?

Mr_Capehill wrote:
Now, the lack of carbage collection and pointer usage separates languages for real men and others

[...]

yes, the real men have much time and strong nerves.  :-D

[replicated]

I think there may be some resentment in the amiga camp towards C++ simply becuse it took so long for us to get a decent compiler. I rember the attitude was we dont need it and  we dont want it. That seems to have stuck. BTW I learnt C++ very quickly and found it easy, i learnt OO through coding some BOOPSI stuff then when I got hold of C++ complier it was like whoa this does it all for me.  

[itix]

Need for C++ is IMO inexistant in AmigaOS/MorphOS where you can have BOOPSI classes.

[Loki1]

all those arguments could be put towards VB too and no real programmer likes that one...

I beg to differ there my friend. VB is a great language for certain things like Database programming.  I use it alot for my Web business and store Point-of-Sale systems.

I would not dream of coding a 3D game (although is is quite ease to do) in VB or any program that need extreme speed.

Any program that is event driven is a good candadate for VB.  By events I am not talking about HW interrupts but Keyboard/mouse types where nothing happens until the user presses a key or clicks a button.

VB is great for quick and dirty programs/utilities that can be developed in a few minutes to a couple of hours.

I am a professional Engineer & Programmer working for the DOD in flight simulation.

I code in C/C++, FORTRAN, ASM, VC++ & VB.

They all have there place and their strengths.
But saying no REAL programer likes VB is pure BULL!

Loki :-P

[MarkTime]

My boss forced me to do an ASP.NET, ADO.NET, C-sharp application.

And guess what, c sharp is good.  Its the next step beyond java.

I am very glad Microsoft released it as a standard, and already we are seeing .NET ports from Borland, and the CLI being ported to various platforms.  Microsoft did the first port, to BSD.

Microsoft's a huge company and they buy up talent.  The guy behind .NET was a real legend and compiler guru.

.NET made programming a web based, database backend application very very logical, and somewhat easy.

I'm still a sucker for a super easy scripting language...like TCL...but this .NET stuff is cool.

And yes, you can program a 3d game in it too.

GAWWWD help you if you can't program a 3d game around here :-))

[MarkTime]

@DaveP

I once did a series of articles on programming in C for the Atari ST, and this was years after Atari was dead....I did it for fun.

The articles were published in user group magazines, and it was really neat...of course all the programming guru's who you never hear from otherwise, came out of the woodwork to 'correct' me constantly....and they were usually wrong.

Lawd knows, I couldn't have been wrong  :-P
but anyway, I betcha there is a bunch of interest in learning to program the next Amiga.

I have no intention of doing any programming in C++,
though, I guess I have to admit, finally that I am against C++

C was great, cause it was a very simple to use language....C++ is a good extension to C, but its not simple and time has changed and their are now the next level beyond C++ (java and c sharp)

That being the case, that C++ has never been simple, and it is no longer the 'best' (in my opinion java and c sharp DO lots of stuff automatically, that was tedious in c++)....then why use C++

The tool I use, is either 'the easiest' if I need that...or 'the best' if I need that.

I would use C++ now, only if I had been using it for years, and it was just comfortable to use.....

then again, on the new Amiga, whats the choices.....not a whole heck of a lot, GCC it is, then

[BlackMonk]

C++ is put down for a simple reason:  elitism.

Most programmers cut their teeth on C.  Most Unix/Linux users had to learn C and C-style of programming for mucking around on their systems.  Anything "new" that might be labelled as BETTER is instantly cause for concern.

I think it's largely hurt pride--how DARE some glorified version of C (it's got "C" in the name, after all!) purport to be more advanced?  Objects?  Bah!  Just use functions, same thing!  

I don't want to learn a new way of doing things!  If it were so great, why isn't my Unix distribution written in C++, eh?  I don't want to be told that my entire C-mindset is obsolete or not as advanced as something else!

---------

That's why I think there's so much C++ resentment.  Not so much on the technical merits but because the C style of programming and C-isms have become a way of life for many people.  This has been passed on to the newer generation of Linux newbies who get told that it's cool to deal with C's shortcomings and cryptic commands and it's cool to make fun of stuff that's non-Linux and non-C.

Simple.  Stupid.  It's 31337!

[Hammer]

all those arguments could be put towards VB too and no real programmer likes that one and it surely hasn't taken over the program development scene

Well, it depends on the task at hand…

I personally wouldn’t use C++ for automated MS Office based solutions.

[Karlos]

Hi,

itix wrote:
Need for C++ is IMO inexistant in AmigaOS/MorphOS where you can have BOOPSI classes.

I beg to differ. OOP lends itself nicely to so many things other than GUI / datatype design. Once you think of objects rather than procedures you suddenly realise the horizon is a lot bigger than you thought.

BOOPSI is great for GUI stuff and runtime class loading/method dispatching. It's written in C and the designers made a *very* good job when you realise the limitations of the language for this kind of system. But consider if we had decent C++ support since the start. I'm sure BOOPSI would have been written in it ;-)
The thing is, BOOPSI lends itself well to event-driven code (such as a GUI) where the users interaction is rate determining. However, the method dispatch mechanisms and data access methods are vastly slower (by virtue of how they work) than a C++ virtual function call, let alone a non-virtual or static member func. Trust me, I've measured this ;-)
You wouldn't want to rely on BOOPSI for all your OOP needs. Imagine the speed penalty of the method calls used in a time critical loop. Ouch :-)

[Calken]

[Treke]

Shame c# is written by ms and there isn't a free compiler yet, or is there?

Maybe Project Mono is what are you looking for, because the ".NET specification" is open.

re

Treke