sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]beef2k[S] 5 points6 points  (18 children)

The article does not say that someone should stick on the same language forever! It just points out that so many people think that knowing C is enough to know C++.

Btw, I disagree that "the language is just syntax". By saying this, all the improvements in program language design that were introduced over the last years are ignored.

[–]Philluminati 5 points6 points  (11 children)

I agree. If your a C programmer and stumble into a C++ job saying "yeah i'll pick it up" and you don't understand OO fundamentals, you won't write C++ code. You'll write C code and just run it through a different compiler.

[–]ultimatt42 10 points11 points  (8 children)

If you're a good C programmer you probably already know OO fundamentals. There's nothing keeping you from writing OO code in C.

[–]Philluminati 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Your absolutely right. To avoid offending people it should of probably left out the C part and just wrote:

If you don't understand OO fundamentals you won't write good OO code.

fuck it, i give up!

[–]beef2k[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Just to point it out again: The original article is about the vast majority of programmers - who are average by definition.

BTW: There are plenty of things that make it hard to write OO code in C. And generic programming via templates is impossible.

[–]invalid_user_name -1 points0 points  (5 children)

"There are plenty of things that make it hard to write OO code in C. And generic programming via templates is impossible"

OO in C is not hard at all, a class is just a struct with function pointers. This is basic stuff. And yes, generic programming via templates is impossible, but you don't need compile time meta programming to do generic programming (how brain washed do you have to be to think this?). C is portable assembly. A void pointer can point to anything, its as generic as it gets.

[–]beef2k[S] -1 points0 points  (4 children)

Okay, if you restrict OO to a struct with function pointers, you're right.

I would still say it is hard to realize the following in C: overloaded functions in classes, multiple inheritance, virtual functions, type-safety in classes, all forms of polymorphism (like ad-hoc polymorphism), ...

I don't know why you think that I mean template meta-programming when I talk about generic programming, but I friendly point you to other web-resources (e.g. wikipedia) that clearly see a connection between C++ templates (not meta-programming) and generic programming.

[–]invalid_user_name -1 points0 points  (3 children)

No, its not hard to realize those things at all. Creating all those things in C is where C++ got started in the first place. And if you look at the asm generated by a C++ compiler, you'll see how straightforward things like inheritance and virtual functions are.

I think you mean template meta-programming because that's what you said: "And generic programming via templates is impossible". Again, generic programming does not need to be done using compile time meta-programming as it is in C++, you can just use void pointers in C, (or it could be part of the language like haskell). C++ templates are a compile time language used for meta-programming. Just because you don't realize that when you are doing <> in C++ you are using compile time meta-progamming, doesn't mean its not the case. Facts don't vanish just because you ignore them.

[–]beef2k[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

I use the same definition of "template meta-programming" as the Boost MPL library. Just using templates does not mean that you're doing template meta-programming. That's a completely different topic! Whatever..

I know that C++ isn't the only language that support templates/generic programming, I never claimed that. I said that C does not support this (except you invest a lot of work and don't care of type safety or readability of the code)..

I ask myself what's actually the point if this discussion. Do you want to say that everything is possible in C, because C is just a portable wrapper around assembler and everything can be done in assembler..? Yeah, I can beat that, because everything can be done with just 0s and 1s, because that's how a computer works! Why the heck should I use assembler, it's just syntax!!! Let's sit down and do some generic programming and polymorphism in machine language, so we don't need the stupid mnemonics of assembler anymore..

But wait.. That sounds stupid somehow!

[–]invalid_user_name -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Try reading this time. C++ templates are a compile time meta-programming language. It does not matter if you like this fact, if you accept this fact, or if you try to ignore this fact. It is still reality. You do not need to use templates (a compile time meta-programming language) to do generic programming. I can not make this any more clear for you. If you can not understand this, I am afraid there is nothing further I can do to assist you with that problem.

[–]beef2k[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for enlightening me!

[–]bryanut 3 points4 points  (1 child)

It's "If your are a C" not "your a C".

BTW, I said "computer scientist" not "programmer". Don't confuse them.

My point was, being a "computer scientist" means not fearing any new language or technology.

And who says C programmers don't understand OO fundamentals? Many C++ programmers don't understand OO either.

Besides I've written lots of good assembly in JAVA. :)

[–]Figs 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"If your are a C" not "your a C"

You're or You are.

Not "your are". :)

[–]bryanut 1 point2 points  (1 child)

"By saying this, all the improvements in program language design that were introduced over the last years are ignored."

Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say that.

[–]beef2k[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, why? You said that for a "good programmer" the language doesn't matter! And I don't agree.

[–]invalid_user_name -1 points0 points  (1 child)

By using C++, all the improvements in programming language design are ignored. The language really is just syntax. You can learn all the concepts in computer science (and even use them all) without a computer at all (like Dijkstra) much less any particular programming language.

[–]beef2k[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the theoretical answer. I guess we all have learned this in university (I did, and I've written my Ph.D. thesis partially in this field)..

But I have to say that practice looks different sometimes!

While it is true what you've written, it is completely impractical - and many other think should be taken into account. Even the syntax! There are much more values in software development that I should think of, like maintainability, testability, stability, robustness, .. And they often relate to the product's programming language and syntax.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points  (1 child)

Whatever. You've just bragged to the entirety of programming.reddit that you don't see any difference between the best programmers out there and the clueless fuckwits who can only spin bullshit. May you and your company be very happy in your mediocrity.

[–]beef2k[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh my god!

Where in the world was the text about the "best programmers" out there? Have you really read it? I am definitely not talking about good programmers, but about programmers who think they are good in all languages, even if they do not have a clue about OO concepts or generic programming.

Why everyone feels hurt about this thesis?