🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1995Aug15.014740.7996@ohstpy>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
|>In article <40o2l4$aqp@deyke3.fc.hp.com>, rainer@deyke3.fc.hp.com (Rainer Deyke) writes:
|>> When writing C++ code, always think
|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>> about how something would translate into C.  This prevents you from
|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>
|>I do and say, THANK GOD I CHOSE C++ FOR THIS PROJECT!
|>
|>I have written more C code than you can shake a stick at, I have written
|>object-oriented code in C, and, being a recent C++ convert, C++
|>has improved the quality and maintenance requirements of my work by
|>so many orders of magnitude it isn't even funny.

  Let's not exaggerate here.  How many times is it?  100? 1000? 10000?


|>The amount of code you need to write in C vs. C++ is about 20:1
|>by an estimate I did last year. If you like to type alot
|>and debug code, C is the way to go. If you liek to do the same
|>thing over and over and over again, only slightly different, use C. 
|>If your time is valuable, then use C++. 

  BULLSHIT!!   If you saw a 20:1 improvement, then you are an incomp-
etent C programmer.  Do you think that C++ invented code reuse?  Ever
used ar?  (Lib tool for PC heads.)  A good C programmer will have
made many libraries of commononly used routines and will simply be
able to link with his existing libs or modify code that he has lying
around.
  You write more code in C++.  You carefully craft each object in 
the hopes that the extra time you spend today will pay off three
months down the road if you need to use the object again.  This
does not mean you can't do the same thing with C.  A good C program-
mer, given the time, will do just that.
  Once you start down a path of saving your code and building libraries
for future use, a lot of your time is spent creating new libraries
(or objects).  There is not a whole lot of difference between the
time it takes to write C code and the time it takes to write C++
code.  Unless you tell me that STL now has a Quake object I can derive
a new rendering engine off. 

  20:1?  Where did you get that figure?  Maybe from some Microsoft
marketing bullshit, I should imagine.


|>-Garrett
|>
|>Don't look back!

  Why not?  You might be able to see that the same hype that 
surrounds C++ has occured about other "revolutionary" concepts
in programming in the past that never really paid off.


LDDenys