|
It because it's object oriented! (referring to your other post below.)
|
|
|
|
|
And it can do amazing template tricks! What's not to love?
|
|
|
|
|
Even COBOL isn't dead yet, so C++ will probably be around for a long time. Besides the legacy inertia, it has good performance and isn't paternalistic. For some things, it's the clear choice.
|
|
|
|
|
It's deterministic--things happen predictably--with gobs of high quality extra stuff available.
(Except for template meta-programming, it's also really straight forward. Yes, sometimes the syntatic sugar gets crazy, but less so than many other languages.)
|
|
|
|
|
I really need to work on my reading comprehension. I first read your post as implying template stuff was straight-forward. After I picked my jaw up, I realized you meant the opposite. Still, with my heart condition…
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
You're not the only one who had to reread that!
|
|
|
|
|
Some inaccuracies in that article, such as the list of legacy app's written in C++, at least two of which were (and predominantly remain) written in C. Most notably UNIX and the Linux kernel. IIRC, muchof My SQL remain in C too.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft announced in June that developers would soon be able to update software distributed by the new Windows 11 Microsoft Store via in-app updates instead of relying on the platform's update process. Good thing no one uses those anymore
|
|
|
|
|
If only the distribution is affected... well, it should not be a big lost.
If they block win32 in Windows 11... that's going to be a big "ouch" that will probably bounce back to them.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Mercifully, it does just look like distribution. It will probably end up meaning the store is as useful as today, and people will get their apps the usual way.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Everybody says they do Agile and yet almost nobody is Agile. "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone wrote: Everybody says they do Agile and yet almost nobody is Agile. Because it doesn't fakkin' work.
Either you do it well, or you better not do it at all.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Either you do it well, or you better not do it at all.
Bad Agile religion is really bad and wastes time beyond limits.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Before Agile, we did SDM. If you can't agile, go SDM. We always delivered, and it works.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
It's an honest mistake that could even fool the human eye for a split second. They just want you to slow down and enjoy the view
|
|
|
|
|
I guess the Tesla must have floored it--and kept on flooring it.
|
|
|
|
|
That's exactly what I would expect to happen.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Could it be that, four decades after object-oriented programming hit the masses, technology is outgrowing this paradigm? Again?
|
|
|
|
|
Edge cases and tenuous arguments. And the article mentions Erlang, a functional programming language.
I'll tell you a story. A major competitor used Erlang, and we had rewritten using OO. When our company went under for various stupid and nefarious reasons, that competitor acquired "our" product (I left a few years after the rewrite and was no longer there). The reason for doing this is so that customers have to replace the product that will now--so sad!--be discontinued. But our major customer refused and chose to fund the product directly. Such was the difference in functionality and responsiveness.
Functional programming has its uses, but mixing two paradigms is difficult, so you generally have to focus on one.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Edge cases and tenuous arguments.
You nailed it! The article takes edge cases and attempts to prove that OOP is dead.
It's such a contrived article because really the items mentioned have solutions but the author has contrived the article in such a way to say, "well, since there are problems with the technology, it is dead".
You can do this with any technology really. List only the bad things about it then pronounce the technology dead. Ok, so the author got the attention that s/he was seeking.
Also, in the author's example of the Copier class problem that they were referring to they always say, "in inhertance, you will have this problem". However, we've known for at least 15 years that inheritance will cause problems. Instead they should be using composition (and DI) to solve their problem.
The author has built a straw man argument -- well inheritance is a problem... Yes, it is and we know that and there are better ways in OOP to make things extensible and reusable but you are conveniently not mentioning them.
|
|
|
|
|
Curiously, inheritance has never caused me much trouble. Sure, I use composition too, but have no qualms about using inheritance when it seems to be the better approach (is-a rather than has-a).
I've never used (to my knowledge) dependency injection. It seems like an awful lot of boilerplate, and C++ already has enough. Also, much of what I've done is frameworks, and unit tests are no substitute for real applications when it comes to testing them. Applications are also much better at finding ways to reduce a framework's surface-to-volume ratio or make life easier for its users.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. DI and composition can create bloat and complex software that is unnecessary.
Again, this is a thing of using things to the appropriate amount -- which seems to be the real problem. Devs often learn one way to do something and then use it everywhere since they know it so well.
And, yes, simple inheritance can solve problems and the code stays clean.
Everything needs to be evaluated related to the challenges at hand, but article writers can never say that.
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to hear this. I was prepared to don my asbestos suit.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there enough straw to make all the author's men?
Selling your side isn't about just criticizing the other side.
|
|
|
|