🚀 go-pugleaf

In <Aug.1.10.34.37.1992.7772@gandalf.rutgers.edu> rgonzal@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Ralph Gonzalez) writes:

>pjl@sparc9.cs.uiuc.edu (Paul Lucas) writes:

>>*****>	What...and there aren't impenetrable pieces of C (or Lisp, or
>>	Ada, or Pascal, or...) code?  It's _always_ up to the programmer
>>	as to how comprehensible to make his/her programs; it's got
>>	nothing to do with the given language...nor should it.  It's a
>>	people issue: languages don't make incomprehensible programs,
>>	programmers do.

>>	I also respectfully put forth the suggestion of the possibility
>>	that perhaps you just don't understand C++ very well.  (That was
>>	a hyposthesis, not a flame.)

>OK I won't take your respectful hypothesis as a flame... My point was that
>the original (and ANSI) C language had a very small set of reserved
>words and an elegant syntax.  C++ on the other hand is becoming a grab-bag
>of every desirable programming feature -- multiple inheritance, generics,
>etc.  If a programmer takes advantage of all these, then, EVEN IF HE
>IS VERY WELL-ORGANIZED, the code will look like a multi-media painting.

*****>	Ever see the ARM?  The features have been decided upon for quite
	a while...it's just some of the subtle things that need ironing
	out that the ANSI comitte is working on.  The elegant-syntax
	thing is pure opinion, but IMHO, C++ carries on the syntax
	precedent set forth in C.

	To do many real-world programs often requires various features;
	template, for example, is a natural extension to classes (and it
	only used one new keyword--template).  But, such programs may
	not use all of those features all of the time, in the same
	modules, etc.

	I prefer to think of multiple-feature use as a judicious use of
	the best features to achieve a given task.  As long as it's
	elegent and well documented.

>You're right that someone who understands C++ very well will probably
>be able to follow it.  You seem to be suggesting that it's ok to write
>code which is only readable by expert C++ programmers...

*****>	Again, it should be well documented.  There are, however, *hard*
	things to write (re-read) no matter what language you write them
	in.  Also, if someone is going to program or be involved with
	programming as a profession, there's no reason that s/he should
	not take it upon him/herself to become an expert programmer.
	You'd want your doctor to be an expert in his/her given field,
	right?  Why are programmers any different?
-- 
	- Paul J. Lucas				University of Illinois	
	  AT&T Bell Laboratories		at Urbana-Champaign
	  Naperville, IL			pjl@cs.uiuc.edu