| |||||||||||||
A look at C++14, part 1A look at C++14, part 1Posted Mar 28, 2013 20:05 UTC (Thu) by ledow (guest, #11753)In reply to: A look at C++14, part 1 by tchernobog Parent article: A look at C++14, part 1
Rocket science, to a rocket scientist, looks just as simple.
Personally, even the explanation of the "non-rocket-science" is enough to put me off. Seriously, read it back to yourself.
Not saying that it's not simple, or not something you could learn, or even not something that could turn into subconscious mental boilerplate, but damn... programming languages are a language to enable communication with the computer - not to become an isolated language of their own that you have to be an expert to speak with any fluency.
(Log in to post comments)
A look at C++14, part 1 Posted Mar 28, 2013 21:39 UTC (Thu) by tchernobog (guest, #73595) [Link]
Nobody forces you to use the whole C++ language (or C++ at all, for that matters; C is there for you, as hundreds of other languages).
But for those of us who understand it, and want to use it, I can't see the damage of having this pipeline thing in the STL. To me, it's a very simple and nifty concept, and I would get a solid implementation of that done in a couple of hours, from scratch. If you don't like it, it's just syntactic sugar over stuff you could do anyway in another, more verbose, way. Or rolling out your own solution; testing is up to you, then.
After all, even Java has a lot of parts that most college students will never touch. RMI, for instance, and the related naming services. But if you need it, it's there (and it's *incredibly* useful for a nice set of problems). Same applies to most languages out there.
I don't see why languages and their associated standard libraries should keep from evolving. To make life easier for some grumpy programmers stuck in the '80?
We develop more complex systems in 2013 than thirty years ago, and static verification is something a lot of us need in the realm of software engineering, so we build the abstractions that enable us to spend a bit more in coding, and much less in QA (which, incidentally, is where real software development costs go).
The matter would be to explain what a monad is to university students, for instance, not holding back progress. Omniscience isn't required to use a language; C++ has many useful subsets for the issue at hand.
A look at C++14, part 1 Posted Mar 29, 2013 2:02 UTC (Fri) by geofft (subscriber, #59789) [Link]
Rocket science is complicated, but plenty of non-rocket-scientists fly airplanes.
The question isn't how hard the language is to implement -- it's how hard the language is to use. This looks straightforward to use, in my eyes.
A look at C++14, part 1 Posted Mar 29, 2013 9:18 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Rocket SCIENCE is easy. Rocket *technology* is hard.
Rocket science is a tube closed at one end, with a supply of two fuels which (spontaneously?) burn when mixed. THAT'S IT!
Rocket technology, on the other hand, is concerned with making sure you don't get too much fuel too quick (explosion) or too slow (rocket doesn't fly), and the controls to make it fly in the right direction, and launch safely etc etc etc.
Rocket SCIENCE is EASY!
Cheers,
A look at C++14, part 1 Posted Mar 29, 2013 10:29 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] Don't even need two fuels; one can build a liquid-fuel rocket motor that runs by the catalytic decomposition of hydrogen peroxide or hydrazine.
|
|||||||||||||