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
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?