Linus Torvalds on C++

Post by bronson » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:34 AM UTC

nxn wrote: post #26

joezydeco wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many distributed version control systems have you worked on and released to the public? Any worth critiquing?

Had he worked on any would that have been a valid excuse to be derogatory to others over something as childish as what programming language they use? If you're going to ask me if I had worked on any OS kernels or distributed version control systems, the answer is no. But I would also never degrade people who might otherwise be willing to help contribute to my projects based on some idiotic notion of programming langu…

Post by dedward » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:35 AM UTC

Game_Ender wrote: post #12

captaincrunch wrote: post #4

Linus is probably the %1 of people in the world who actually needs to get the performance gain that C has over C++ - as for the rest of us? Probably doesn't matter.

> needs to get the performance gain that C has over C++ With RTTI and Exceptions disabled you should be able to get almost identical performance with C and C++. In some cases C++ compiler has additional information that can allow it to produce faster code as well.

Post by mikeash » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:42 AM UTC

dedward wrote: post #30

mikeash wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand what proponents of C++ say, C++ is supposed to be suited best for medium-level programming where abstraction is helpful but low-level constructs and speed are still helpful. It's supposed to give you many of the benefits of higher level languages while still giving you high performance. It's intended to be widely portable but still easily hook into special OS-specific facilities. This description soun…

It's that "if properly managed" bit that would be a nightmare from hell to manage... easier to just do it in C. What it's intended to do is rather different than what it's actually used for in real life..... code talks, anything else is just smoke, right? IF someone can come alnog and show us a better way in any language, then tehre's something to argue about, otehrwise, the guy who has working code wins over the guy…

Post by strags » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:45 AM UTC

jmj42 wrote: post #22

strags wrote: post #17

Linus's objections seem centered on the fact that it makes it easier to generate bloated code. While this may be true, there's nothing a little self-discipline can't control. STL and Boost may not make sense for the kernel, but there's nothing wrong with using C++ classes at their most basic. The kernel would be far more readable if it used classes and simple inheritance rather than re-inventing the wheel with struct…

"...rather than re-inventing the wheel with structs full of function pointers." I think you got that backwards. Structs full of function pointers predate c++. Going for the ad absurdum, why bother inventing C++, it's just a re-inventing of the structs full of function pointers wheel?

Post by X-Istence » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:46 AM UTC

javadyan wrote: post #13

hndl wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're missing the point here. Taking the side of the customer of git, I'm happy. I type things on a CLI with git and things happen pretty fast. I'm happy. I don't care whether you wrote it with C, C++ or Haskell. It works. It works just fine. To Linus's point, I've never used, or even heard of someone using Monotone. That must say _something_.

I've used Monotone. It's pretty horrible if you ask me.