Originally Posted by IceDane
I'll just leave this here for people to appreciate the hypocrisy.
I'll just leave this here for people to appreciate the hypocrisy.
bit∙hub [bit-huhb] n. A source and destination for information.
I fail to see a reason that justifies your anger and childish behavior. I did not make a single comment on the debate, C vs. C++, other than that I thought C++ was easier to develop in. My whole post was about OOP as a programming paradigm, why I wouldn't want to attempt to write OO code in and how Linus Torvalds' behavior was embarrassing and childish - much like yours is right now, trying to start an argument with me about something I didn't really comment on.
Regarding the homework statement; if he had done his homework in a manner that would make his statements irrefutable, then his behavior would have been ignorable as what he was saying was simply too right to even argue against. I didn't say he didn't do his homework, but he was still trying to participate in an argument that can't be settled completely with facts, using some pseudo-facts(E.g. C++ is bad, and the only way you can do strings concatenation in C++ is slow and inefficient).
Nice try, but I don't feel like arguing over this. C vs. C++ is like religion.
"What's up, Doc?"
"'Up' is a relative concept. It has no intrinsic value."
I'm not arguing with Linus Torvalds which means that I'm not trying to counter his arguments by using some form of Reductio ad ridiculum.
It isn't really name calling, I'm merely expressing my opinion of his childish behavior.
"What's up, Doc?"
"'Up' is a relative concept. It has no intrinsic value."
Oh, that doesn't require justification, which is why we call it "childish". Sort of like your debating style
My point was that you are possibly correct: LT makes lots of very specific and therefore presumably refutable(!) statements about C++.
But you don't REFUTE any of them, you just spout badly formed pseudo rhetoric. That is, of course, a great way to fill some sentences without yourself having to say anything specific or concrete that could be refuted. It also implies that you did not really want to find anything but "An angry, fat swede, frothing at the mouth" (sic. since he is neither fat nor Swedish); you were just looking for an excuse to mount an ad hominem attack.
Thus, my use of the term "uneducated and ignorant" is not prejudicial; it is possible to be uneducated and ignorant, that does not mean it is your fault or that you should be ashamed. But anyone who has had to write a college (or high school) essay will recognize that just saying "So and so is stupid and wrong, because I say so" without 1) citing anything 2) providing any evidence to support your claim gets:
F++
My use of the term "liar" is prejudicial tho, sorry!
[edit] but hey, I sympathize. A while back brewbuck, who I respect, called perl "ugly" -- and he's lucky he didn't get a letterbomb for it
Last edited by MK27; 09-14-2009 at 06:29 PM.
C programming resources:
GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
The C Book -- nice online learner guide
Current ISO draft standard
CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge
I believe you're thinking of Esbo.
As for Linus, I think the term "Ignoranus" pretty much sums him up.
"I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008
"the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010
Alright - I'll bite.Oh, that doesn't require justification, which is why we call it "childish". Sort of like your debating style
My point was that you are possibly correct: LT makes lots of very specific and therefore presumably refutable(!) statements about C++.
But you don't REFUTE any of them, you just spout badly formed pseudo rhetoric. That is, of course, a great way to fill some sentences without yourself having to say anything specific or concrete that could be refuted.
Thus, my use of the term "uneducated and ignorant" is not prejudicial; it is possible to be uneducated and ignorant, that does not mean it is your fault or that you should be ashamed. But anyone who has had to write a college (or high school) essay will recognize that just saying "So and so is stupid and wrong, because I say so" without 1) citing anything 2) providing any evidence to support your claim gets:
F++
My use of the term "liar" is prejudicial tho, sorry!
Nothing in there says anything about either language being better. Does say a lot about my personal experiences. Moving on.You seem to be suffering from a common misconception; that programming language features dictate what kind of code you write in it.
All the features that C++ has for facilitating OOP are just that - features for facilitating OO programming. OOP is a programming paradigm, not a term that describes the features of the language.
You can write OO C code, like shown above. In reality, you could even do so without structs(Which is C's only way to create 'custom objects'). You could, in reality, use a char buffer for everything and then simply write functions for accessing members of object, that handle taking data and aligning it so that it fits into the buffer. Point being, the term "OOP" is a certain way of designing your programs.
But I agree whole-heartedly - writing OO code in a language that has no native features to facilitate it is insane. I have been writing something in C on and off for a while now, and I am, among other things using structs with function pointers, to implement an event queue. It's gnarly, nasty code. Seriously. I'll also have to write a lot a code to queue up data between worker threads and the sender thread of my application, which C++ could easily do in using std::queue or possibly std:riority_queue, with some code for thread synchronization.
There I point out that if he had brought some real arguments to the table, maybe his childish behavior had been excusable. He didn't. I read the whole debate, and he mostly argues about performance and decides that C++ code cannot be written in an efficient manner, because its standard libraries might be efficient at some tasks.Regarding Linus Torvalds' rant - I really lost a lot of respect for him. I was hoping he'd at least have done his homework to an extent that his statements would be irrefutable, but man, he is just spewing ........ and calling people names. He really shouldn't act like that, as he's a somewhat public figure. I don't know about you guys, or anyone else, but I can't help but imagine torvalds himself as angry as the rant sounds, and it's just hilarious. An angry, fat swede, frothing at the mouth.
Oh, I also laugh at him.
There I point out that I cannot possibly see how writing C++ instead of C can be anything other than an upgrade, ease of development and code management wise.His arguments for performance are stupid - like Elysia pointed out, games aren't exactly programs where performance is irrelevant. If the performance difference was that huge, C++ wouldn't be used as much as it is being used. On top of that, I cannot possibly see how C++ could do anything but make development much, much easier. Tracking down bugs in complicated C code where the logic is disguised by micro-managing mundane things like string handling and the like(And yes, this really does happen. I do believe that most of my aforementioned program's source code is either directly or indirectly code that parses strings.)
I don't know if it is my "badly formed pseudo rhetoric", but you seem to be incapable of understanding what I write. I did not make an attempt to participate in the debate. I expressed my own opinions; that C++ is nice to write code in. I have myself written C for several years, and it's my old love, but I still think writing code is nicer in C++, as it's simply easier to manage.
I don't know how you manage to fail to comprehend what I said about his homework, and how he doesn't come up with any arguments that are irrefutable(e.g. facts), but you definitely get kudos for doing so.
Oh, yeah. About analyzing specific statements and providing evidence for my claims - I would appreciate it if you could do the following:
a) Analyze specific statements in my replies
and then
b) Show where I claim anything about C or C++, or where I say something along the lines of:
Man, I pity your spouse(if you have one), when you get into arguments. You are exceedingly good at taking something someone says, twisting it around so you can interpret it as if the other person was arguing, rather than expressing opinion."So and so is stupid and wrong, because I say so"
"What's up, Doc?"
"'Up' is a relative concept. It has no intrinsic value."
I bet.
Ah. Nothing wrong with that.Nothing in there says anything about either language being better. Does say a lot about my personal experiences.
But he did -- which is not to say they are correct, but your avoidance of his real arguments is starting to sound like an attempt to make them disappear, unless...oh no...There I point out that if he had brought some real arguments to the table,
Okay so, now if I paraphrase incredibly
What a come back. So now of course I will be inspired to take this seriously:
Kind of like me saying that everyone should speak just English, because from my perspective that will really make everything easier to understand.
That much is clear.
You sure know how to dig a hole, at least. I don't really have much of a personal opinion about the debate EXCEPT in so far as the original antagonist, "Dmitry", claims explicitly that C should be a dead language and (like you) that C++ must be improvement, therefore using C to do anything is the wrong choice. But apparently it has not worked out that way in real life. So he kinda gets what he deserves.
Darn it. See, you are dragging me down with you nowStill, C++ programmers seem to be the most defensive people in the business.More so than python programmers even. Not very encouraging...
C programming resources:
GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
The C Book -- nice online learner guide
Current ISO draft standard
CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge
I bet.
Ah. Nothing wrong with that.
But he did -- which is not to say they are correct, but your avoidance of his real arguments is starting to sound like an attempt to make them disappear, unless...oh no...
Okay so, now if I paraphrase incredibly
What a come back. So now of course I will be inspired to take this seriously:
Kind of like me saying that everyone should speak just English, because from my perspective that will really make everything easier to understand.
That much is clear.
You sure know how to dig a hole, at least. I don't really have much of a personal opinion about the debate EXCEPT in so far as the original antagonist, "Dmitry", claims explicitly that C should be a dead language and (like you) that C++ must be improvement, therefore using C to do anything is the wrong choice. But apparently it has not worked out that way in real life. So he kinda gets what he deserves.
Darn it. See, you are dragging me down with you now
You're completely right. He does make some arguments, but none of them are smoking guns that can simply end argument.
First argument: He decides that C++ leads to bad design choices. What?
Second argument: He points out a single C++ program that went bad. Do I have to point out the insignificance of that fact?
Third argument: Yes, C is much more portable, due to it being low level as he says. I don't know what he means by "interfaces and low-level support" - unless he means that it's easier to port it and use it on embedded systems. Yes, it's low level, that's why. No argument there.
Fourth argument: I have no idea about this one, to be perfectly honest. I don't know anything whatsoever about git and I won't attempt to comment, other than that I doubt what he is doing in C cannot be done in C++ with similar efficiency on modern architectures. Either way, he is simply explaining what is good for git, not proving in any way that C is better than C++.
Fifth argument: I don't know - I like C++ the way it is. From my quick look into the C++0x standard, I can't help but think it's going to be more like C#, which is only good as I love C# as well. It'll be like C#, except more portable and more low-level(Despite the high level code and interfaces). It still doesn't make it a bad language.
Way to intentionally misinterpret what I said. I never said everyone should use C and that everything should be done in it.Kind of like me saying that everyone should speak just English, because from my perspective that will really make everything easier to understand.
Like I mentioned(and you willfully ignored) I write a lot of C. I love both C and C++, but I think both are good for what they're good for. Of course, you can write a lot of the same stuff in both languages, but some applications might be nicer to manage if you wrote it in one or the other. Using C++ to write an application that will require heavy modification or complete remake of standard libraries will probably make it a bad choice. Using C for something where object oriented logic is logical wouldn't be a good choice.
"What's up, Doc?"
"'Up' is a relative concept. It has no intrinsic value."
Not even close. There are legitimate issues with the de facto design choices being made by code monkeys forced (willingly or not) to use strict C++ design. Number 1 being that C++ is not always the best way to solve a problem. In fact it often is not. C++ was designed as an extension to the C language, not to completely replace it. I wouldn't want to use pure C++ any more than I would want to use pure C. Real world applications just have to many unique and particular design requirements to be solved by arbitrarily choosing to only use one or the other.
Do I want to write an application without being able to use classes? No.
Do I want to have to write my entire application using nothing but classes? Hell No.
I use Functional/Procedural programming just like I use C/C++. Neither one can exclusively solve every problem in every domain and many solutions are both more intuitive and elegant when using both.
WARNING CAR ANALOGY AHEAD
It's like saying box wrenches are better than socket wrenches because they are stronger, or socket wrenches are better than box wrenches because they are faster. Personally I don't want to stuck using one or the other when i go to rebuild an engine. I want, nay, DEMAND to be able to use whichever I want whenever I want.
Whether to use C or C++ for a particular sub-problem is a design choice that must remain in the hands of the programmer, not the hands of the guy/gal writing the design document. I mean whats next, saying you can only use while loops, no for loops? Only if() blocks, no switch()? only function calls, no goto? Only local variables, no globals? Only pure C++ no C? Only STL, no WinAPI? Only the letters A-P no Q-Z? Where does it stop, does it stop?
The problem is the C++ only camp is stuck on the features of C++ and PRACTICE only using socket wrenches to rebuild engines, which will inherently lead to poor design choices because they are limited to modifications that can be easily achieved with only socket wrenches. The same could be said of C only programmers except C only programmers generally do NOT advocate a C only approach without real external non-arbitrary requirements. Embedded designs are a case in point. Most embedded systems simply do not have the memory or processing speeds to sacrifice on the altar of OOP design. C++ may not bog down a multi billion operation per second processor, but it most certainly will bog down one whose speed is measured in mere thousands or perhaps a handful of millions of operations per second and may not have the decades mature fully developed tool chain of the x86 family.
Last edited by abachler; 09-14-2009 at 07:57 PM.
Oh you buckle over like a sack of wet potatoes hijacking a rollercoaster
In all seriousness, thanks for responding seriously and honestly, IceDane. As a "programming tyke" I am *honestly* interested in the debate, so it is kind of disappointing to just read the same ol' vacuous tripe, I want some meat with my wet potatoes. It would be sort of ridiculous to consider either C or C++ a waste of time for crazy people. Etc.
::P take care!
ps. this is tangential BUT clandestine investigation is leading closer to and closer to the conclusion that Linus Torvalds == Elysia. Now that's crafty
Last edited by MK27; 09-14-2009 at 07:59 PM.
C programming resources:
GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
The C Book -- nice online learner guide
Current ISO draft standard
CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge
I don't think that's name-calling. Calling somebody a "big fat poopy head" is name-calling. Calling somebody childish just might be an accurate description, not an ad hominem.
Personally, I think there is a rather large cult of programmers, not limited just to the Linux kernel, which believe that no language but C could possibly be flexible or efficient enough to implement something like an operating system (or whatever their pet project is).
While this sort of fanatic passion for a certain way of doing things is very common in engineering, none of the best engineers I've ever worked with operate that way. Everything should always be open to consideration. The only arguments I've heard against C++ in the kernel are that exceptions are impossible to deal with (false) and that too much overhead would be implied (probably also false).
I've never seen a serious attempt to implement a large chunk of kernel code in C++ and benchmark it. People think it's a bad idea and won't even try the experiment. I do think that's childish.
Code://try //{ if (a) do { f( b); } while(1); else do { f(!b); } while(1); //}
Where then exactly does "An angry, fat swede, frothing at the mouth" fit into the brewbuck-rationalization spectrum? BTW, I think this is another way of saying that an ad hominem attack is not quite illogical, it just runs the risk of being so.
Whew! My excuse is sound then:I've never seen a serious attempt to implement a large chunk of kernel code in C++ and benchmark it. People think it's a bad idea and won't even try the experiment. I do think that's childish.
Also I've never used C++, but y'all are starting to win me over, slowlytyke also tike
n.
1. A small child, especially a boy.
2. A mongrel or cur.
Last edited by MK27; 09-14-2009 at 08:04 PM.
C programming resources:
GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
The C Book -- nice online learner guide
Current ISO draft standard
CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge
How come you always bring up some irrelevant part of a thread and use it to ascribe opinions to me that I haven't expressed?
If any sort of criticism that involves, I don't know, an adjective, is consider name-calling then I don't see how anybody can ever argue without doing it. I merely think that the Linux kernel community's consistent and vehement resistance to the use of any language other than C is pointlessly defensive, based on outdated information, and yes, a bit childish.
And anyway, Linus isn't even Swedish.
Code://try //{ if (a) do { f( b); } while(1); else do { f(!b); } while(1); //}
A special and exclusive talent
Vis. the kernel team's attitude, I get the message that there will be NO TRADE-OFFS in the speed vs. ease department. Like none. Zip. Zero. Absolute priority. It is not like the kernel is just another app. They all depend upon it. So you stick with C, since you may be able to do it another way and come "close enough", but your chances of improving performance are nil. Zip. Zero. Also there's that maintainability/portability issue, tho IMO "maintainability" is probably much more subjective than most programmers want to let on.
Different tools for different tasks, I say. Like I think perl is just the tish, and you could write a perfectly fine modern web browser with it, but no one is bugging the mozilla team to "use perl instead!" Who wants to bother?
Ie, maybe they are just "going overboard" on a safe/sure bet.
Last edited by MK27; 09-14-2009 at 08:32 PM.
C programming resources:
GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
The C Book -- nice online learner guide
Current ISO draft standard
CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge
Not sure why people care what Linus thinks, he's nothing amazing. Just some arrogant dude who did something once, living in his own virtual world.
