51–60 of 158 posts
"You can write reasonably fast software in almost any decent language (with a few exceptions)." - this is entirely wrong statement.
From what you wrote, it appears you don't know the meaning of "reasonably", "decent", "exception" and that you set your mind to disagreeing with the author before even fully comprehending the post.
There are multiple types of system software, and it wasn't specified which. If you're talking about Embedded or Kernel Systems, writing a layer that can efficiently and securely multiplex and abstract the hardware requires a much different set of tools than the rest of the system. Here I disagree with the author. Once you're no longer concerned with directly probing the hardware, it seems far more appropriate to worr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Practical, old languages tend to do this. In C++ or Common Lisp, which share little other than being multi-paradigm (unopinionated), it is fairly common to have house styles or accepted subsets. Languages that try to build in some "house style" are my personal dystopia - such as early Java or current Go. Which does not say they ate not effective, just that I personally hate the philosophy.
Both C++ and Common Lisp suffer a huge accumulation of historical baggage. It is this that makes the languages problematic, not being multi-paradigm. Common Lisp has first/rest as well as car/cdr. It has streams and numbers and the functions on them seem generic but aren’t (always) generic functions. It still has rplca despite (setf car) being a valid function name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This feels like Stockholm syndrome to me. 1. I’m amazed that you call Java ugly and verbose but recommend C++. Apart from files not needing to be classes in C++, they feel similarly verbose to me with C++ slightly winning on ugliness. 2. I basically don’t believe that memory management is not hard. The reason is that plenty of programs written in ‘modern’ or ‘safe’ C++ in the style you recommend continue to have plen…
> 1. I’m amazed that you call Java ugly and verbose but recommend C++. Apart from files not needing to be classes in C++, they feel similarly verbose to me with C++ slightly winning on ugliness. I've always found java much much more verbose. here's e.g. hello world in javafx: package helloworld; import javafx.application.Application; import javafx.event.ActionEvent; import javafx.event.EventHandler; import javafx.sce…
package dev.kronis.jfxdemo;
import javafx.application.Application;
import javafx.scene.Scene;
import javafx.scene.control.Button;
import javafx.scene.layout.StackPane;
import javafx.stage.Stage;
public class HelloApplication extends Application {
public static void main(String[] args) {
launch(args);
}
@Override
public void start(Stage primaryStage) {
primaryStage.setTitle("Hello World!");
var btn = new Button();
btn.setText("Say 'Hello World'");
btn.setOnAction(event -> System.out.println("Hello World!"));
var root = new StackPane();
root.getChildren().add(btn);
primaryStage.setScene(new Scene(root, 300, 250));
primaryStage.show();
}
}
Well, more like 18 lines of actual code, since imports will almost never be written manually and my IDE collapses them by default, and 505 characters.
For comparison, the code for Qt is 16 lines and 335 characters.
To me, those differences are not significant enough for them to matter all that much.
As for the whole TriFunction thing, i feel like most modern languages are bad in regards to handling functions and their parameters as well as their return values. The thing that i've found most annoying is having container/wrapper objects for function returns when you need to return more than one thing from a function, or alternatively have to pass in a mutable container object of sorts which muddies things (much like how on the DBMS side you have OUT parameters). In contrast, just look at how Go does things, you can return multiple values from any function!
Here's hoping that Java and other languages keep improving in the future and we get more tasteful syntactic sugar to cut out the unimportant and menial boilerplate code. In the mean time, Kotlin is also decent, look at the following function syntax wise:
override fun start(primaryStage: Stage) {
primaryStage.title = "Hello World!"
val btn = Button()
btn.text = "Say 'Hello World'"
btn.onAction = EventHandler { println("Hello World!") }
val root = StackPane()
root.children.add(btn)
primaryStage.scene = Scene(root, 300.0, 250.0)
primaryStage.show()
}
"You can write reasonably fast software in almost any decent language (with a few exceptions)." - this is entirely wrong statement.
Looking at the whole statement I think that the argument is that algorithms are more important than language when it comes to speed which is correct (with a few exceptions).
I think C++ is just fine. Memory management is not that hard anymore using smart pointers. I prefer that to java at any time of the night or day. Such an ugly verbose language. The buzz word laden stuff is actually quite bad. I have seen what could be rather simple systems be very unreliable and slow because of the many microservices all in their own container. Then if one is sensible enough to avoid that there is an…
This feels like Stockholm syndrome to me. 1. I’m amazed that you call Java ugly and verbose but recommend C++. Apart from files not needing to be classes in C++, they feel similarly verbose to me with C++ slightly winning on ugliness. 2. I basically don’t believe that memory management is not hard. The reason is that plenty of programs written in ‘modern’ or ‘safe’ C++ in the style you recommend continue to have plen…
If you try to write Java in C++ then probably the result is verbose. With some practice though, memory management needn't be hard - if memory management is hard that hints lack of organization.
Smaller, script-like programs where there is no place for large-scale organization, are a different story (especially in C and C-like C++) and GC'ed languaged might be more convenient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what you wrote, it appears you don't know the meaning of "reasonably", "decent", "exception" and that you set your mind to disagreeing with the author before even fully comprehending the post.
"reasonably", "decent", "exception" are contradictory to "speed".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This feels like Stockholm syndrome to me. 1. I’m amazed that you call Java ugly and verbose but recommend C++. Apart from files not needing to be classes in C++, they feel similarly verbose to me with C++ slightly winning on ugliness. 2. I basically don’t believe that memory management is not hard. The reason is that plenty of programs written in ‘modern’ or ‘safe’ C++ in the style you recommend continue to have plen…
> 2. I basically don’t believe that memory management is not hard. If you try to write Java in C++ then probably the result is verbose. With some practice though, memory management needn't be hard - if memory management is hard that hints lack of organization. Smaller, script-like programs where there is no place for large-scale organization, are a different story (especially in C and C-like C++) and GC'ed languaged…