[openbeos] Re: Innovation: Design and Programming

  • From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 09:01:35 -0400

Lazy is all relative. :-)
One of the features of C++ is that the reuse lets me get more done by writing 
less code.
The reuse level is (claimed to be) higher than C and other strictly procedural 

There is something about my mind that screams *too tough* at C++. Not that I 
don't know it or can't use it. But it "feels" too complex. Like there should be 
an easier way. 

We had a case at work the other day where a "C" header was being included in 
some places (time.h) and the C++ version (time.h) was being included in other 
places. Because of that, function calling wasn't working properly. Because of 
the namespacing of struct tm. How subtle is that? Maybe I am lazy, but I would 
*far* rather not have to face those issues.

Don't get me wrong - C++ will not be going away from OBOS or the rest of the 
world any time soon. But I think that there is a real place for developers who 
don't want to climb that kind of a learning curve just to get some simple app 

>> > ...Because I'm looking around (MS Windows platform) and I see that
>> > A BUNCH of programmers, don't like C++, they prefer BASIC OR
>> > DELPHI!!! (... they are to lazy...:-)
>> Why would you want lazy developers to write software for you?
>Agreed, but before we accept "lazy" as the excuse, let's consider Ada. 
>Ada is hated by some developers because it is extremely fussy. 
>However, the fussy nature of the compiler enforces good programming
>habits, demands correct code, and often catches far more mistakes than
>would a compiler from a language such as C or C++, or even Pascal. 
>Thus Ada can help to reduce development time and cost by doing a lot
>more of the debugging work in the compiler, before the program will
>even compile.
>So while some developers may hate the fussy nature of Ada, or even
>consider it too "wordy," the language is quite superior to most others
>in terms of consistency, error-checking, and low development times.
>Pascal has some similar properties, to a lesser degree, as compared to
>C, C++, etc.  Java is much more type-safe than C and C++, so it is
>slightly better in this sense as well.
>BASIC certainly has its place, and was my primary language for several
>years (QuickBASIC under DOS), though I have transitioned to Pascal now;
>I choose to use Pascal instead of C or C++, certainly not because I am
>lazy (although I probably am to some degree), but because I recognize
>it as a superior language, and because I like programs that actually
>work ;-)
>Lazy isn't choosing one language over another, but rather quickly
>releasing slowly-developed buggy code (M$ is the canonical example
>here, of course).
>Better a slow Java program with no bugs than a fast Assembler program
>that crashes every ten seconds.

Other related posts: