Ted posted:
Is the complexity of C++ by design?
Vague question. Functionality wasn't sacrificed so that the language could
be easier to learn. To draw an analogy: Americans, for example, love their
automatic transmission cars. Europeans, on the other hand, love their manual
transmission cars. I myself drive a manual transmission and I love it, I'd
prefer it over an automatic transmission any day. But learning how to drive
with manual tranmission can be very frustrating.
You have to decide whether you're an "automatic transmission" person or a
"manual transmission person". If you're an "automatic transmission" person,
then take up something like Visual Basic; it'll be easy to learn.
If you're a "manual tranmission" person, then take up something like C++; it
won't be easy-peasy to learn, but once you get the hang of it, you'll
realise just how much more control you have.
After all that's what we're talking about -- how easy the language is to
learn. After the learning process, its usage becomes second nature.
The motive being to artificially
create levels of high cost personnel required to use it and also to
ensure only few can create the tools. The old "job security trick"!
Yeah that's sort of the idea with qualifications all over the world. For
instance: A person will study something like Dendrochronology for ten years
so that they'll be able to get a job which not everyone can perform -- hence
they get higher pay. (And job satisfaction if they really like
Dendrochronology).
Let's say I am an employer: If we all had only one arm, and someone showed
up in my little corner shop looking for work, and had two arms, I'd hire
them in a heart-beat and give him high pay because they can perform actions
which not many people can perform, actions which contribute positively to my
business.
If you don't like the whole concept of qualifications, then stay with the
working class, or maybe take a one-year course and boost your salary by a
few grand.
There seems to be signs that the above is true (censorship in the
moderated C++ groups for one). Oh my, it could be a scandal!
No, you've been censored because your arguments come across as being driven
by some vendetta-fueled desire to strip C++ of its integrity. This is viewed
as stupidity by many.
-Tomás