[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT] C++ question re. dyn. mem.

On Wednesday 06 August 2003 01:02, Dave Carrigan wrote:
> > Language experts sure get their shorts knotted up over simple questions.
> >  
> Because your question had to do with undefined and
> implementation-dependent behavior.

I know that.   See my other posts.  I asked a question about handling dynamic 
memory not type casting.  I changed what I was doing to use templates and 
made a container class (probably did it wrong, but I don't care at this 

I got dragged over the coals for type casting - something used often in the 
kernel.  Now there is a suggestion that C++ is not C, the kernel is written 
is C, and so the use of type casting in the kernel does not apply to C++.  
That arguement suggests that C is unclean and C++ is doing things the Right 
Way (if you're smart enough to use it correctly). All this worry over 
casting.  It's a wonder that the kernel works on Intel, SPARC, Alpha, etc.  
Funny thing is that while the kernel is working (casts and all), you guys are 
compiling your pure C++ code.

Type casting works in my application on Intel 32bit Linux. Using casts is 
useful in my work with bit oriented telephony signaling protocols where you 
have to count bits and octets because parameter structures in messages are 
dynamic.  I am _not_ going to add all sorts of portability enhancing do-dads 
that make C++ even more difficult to read than it already is.  If what I make 
is useful and someone wants it on a different platform, then we'll discuss a 
new project. 

I could spend a lot of time becoming the a better C++ programmer and have 
little time left over for being an application expert.  We can't all be C++ 
experts and I certainly don't claim to be one.  I came for help and I got 
chastised for writing bad code.  That is not the usual Debian way from my 
short experience with Debian.

This experience suggests that some experts like to to make others feel stupid 
and they could care less about helping people with their knowledge.  Is this 
how people are treated when they release open source code - language experts 
pouncing on every line of badly written code?   

It is unreasonable to expect application experts to be language experts.  
It's good if they are but it's not necessary. I say it's better to create 
more things with bad code than to create less things with elegant and easily 
portable code.  Portability is a job for platform experts. Application 
experts should stick to their knitting.  Language experts should ply their 
trade with more respect for the humans that come to them for help.

Oh, and show your elegant portable code to a rank-and-file programmer for a 
judgement on readability - you'll probably find him or her scratching their 
heads in confusion for a long time. C++ already has a reputation for being 
incomprehensible and thereby difficult to maintain.

I can see why programming as a profession is fading and why programming jobs 
are going to the lowest bidder.  Who wants to pay programmers to create 
issues to argue about instead of creating product?
Mike Mueller

Reply to: