C++ Scandal?!

T

Ted

Is the complexity of C++ by design? 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"!

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!

Ted
 
N

Noah Roberts

Ted said:
Is the complexity of C++ by design? 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"!

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!

Can't imagine why the mods would censor your drivel.
 
M

Markus Moll

Hi
Is the complexity of C++ by design? 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"!

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!

Hm... I think you're in the wrong group. You were probably looking for
alt.conspiracy
:)

Markus
 
A

Alf P. Steinbach

* Ted:
Is the complexity of C++ by design? 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"!

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!

Perhaps if you posted the article that you thought was "censored", we
could comment on it.
 
T

TB

Ted skrev:
Is the complexity of C++ by design? 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"!

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!

Ted

If you can't grasp C++, then try something else.
 
T

Ted

Alf P. Steinbach said:
* Ted:

Perhaps if you posted the article that you thought was "censored", we could comment on it.

There's 10 or more of them, that's why I think something is fishy and that I may
be on to something here.

Ted
 
T

Ted

Alf P. Steinbach said:
* Ted:

Perhaps if you posted the article that you thought was "censored", we could comment on it.

Apparently they've been censored here also!

Ted
 
D

Default User

Ted said:
Is the complexity of C++ by design? 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"!

Ah, now you have crossed from idiot to troll. That makes the decision
simple.


*plonk*



Brian
 
T

Tomás

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
 
M

Mirek Fidler

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

(slightly OT)

Interesting, I prefer automatic transmission cars over manuals (although
I am know how to handle manual) but I still prefer C++ ;) and maybe even
for the same reasons - C++ is in fact the most "automatic" language of
all... (if used properly).

BTW, performance of _modern_ automatic transmission in the real life and
average driver usually beats manual. Perhaps there is some analogy with
_modern_ C++ compilers? :)

Mirek
 
T

Ted

Tomás said:
Ted posted:



Vague question.

Feel free to expound on any specific area of complexity if you wish. I'm just
wondering about the general direction of the language if there is such a thing.
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.

You seem to think that it necessarily has to be difficult.
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.

That's one aspect. Then again, if it's a never-ending battle, that isn't good.
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).

But to invent a field "Dendrochronology" just to get the paycheck is said:
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.

That's not the point.
No, you've been censored because your arguments come across as being driven
by some vendetta-fueled desire to strip C++ of its integrity.

Oh, so it's some people's assumptions (however convenient that is). That's the only
excuse you can come up with? Lame. Very lame. People passing judgement on
others trivially shouldn't be moderating anything. It makes USENET the equivalent
of an IRC chatroom ("Lord of the Flies" comes to mind).

If C++ cannot withstand critical review, and requires censorship to maintain its
perceived value (can you say "snake oil"?), then its future looks bleak indeed.
This is viewed
as stupidity by many.

Ted
 
T

Ted

Tomás said:
Ted posted:
No, you've been censored because your arguments come across as being driven
by some vendetta-fueled desire to strip C++ of its integrity.

To me that sounds like: "you've made some good points about the validity of preprocessor-
based templates, but we'll be damned if we're going post anything that will potentially
cause others to consider such blasphemy (not to mention that our status as demigods may
also be reduced to mere mortal)".

Ted
 
R

Roland Pibinger

Interesting, I prefer automatic transmission cars over manuals (although
I am know how to handle manual) but I still prefer C++ ;) and maybe even
for the same reasons - C++ is in fact the most "automatic" language of
all... (if used properly).

I agree:
C++ -> RAII -> automatic resource management (few try/catch)
Java -> no RAII -> manual resource management (many try/catch/finally)

Roland Pibinger
 
R

Roland Pibinger

Is the complexity of C++ by design?
Yes.

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"!

Hardly. The simpler solution always wins over the more complex.
Creating complexity is doomed to failure.

Best wishes,
Roland Pibinger
 
T

Ted

Roland Pibinger said:

And for what reason do you think?
Hardly. The simpler solution always wins over the more complex.

So which simpler solution will win over C++? Is clc++m the "keep the
complexity alive as long as possible" group?
Creating complexity is doomed to failure.

I think so too. So you think C++ is doomed then?

Ted
 
G

Gianni Mariani

Roland said:
Hardly. The simpler solution always wins over the more complex.
Creating complexity is doomed to failure.

The "Mariani Thoery of Complexity" :

"There exists a minimum complexity solution to any soluble problem".

You may consider:

"char *" vs "std::string"

std::string is far more complex a data type than "char *".

However, is you look at the problem more closely, using "std::string"
yields less complex code.

Go figure, the more complex solution (using std::string) wins.
 
T

Ted

Alf P. Steinbach said:
* Ted:

Perhaps if you posted the article that you thought was "censored", we could comment on it.

I've put the posts in this group under the thread "Overuse of Templates", which is
he same as the topic they were destined for originally in comp.lang.c++.moderated
but were rejected there (comp.std.c++ rejected them also and this is the second
attempt at posting them in this newsgroup). People should read the same topic
in comp.lang.c++.moderated first from the beginning if they want a greater context.

Ted
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top