| 1 |
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 8:32 PM, Michael Jones <gentoo@×××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > No-no. C++ is a nightmare. A few people want to use it. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> C++ is an extremely widespread language with millions of lines of code written daily world wide. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
i think that might be misleading as it seems to |
| 8 |
imply that being a c++ dev is mutually exclusive |
| 9 |
against being a c dev (is it? the languages agree on |
| 10 |
many syntaxes/features). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
i think the right way of thinking is as follows: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
1. identify programming features needed to code |
| 15 |
a reliable pms. i think most likely all we |
| 16 |
need is [recursive] function calls and |
| 17 |
if/else/loops. the rest probably has to do |
| 18 |
with algorithms (independent of the language). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
2. pick language that has features (1) and has the |
| 21 |
largest users base. if the set of features in |
| 22 |
(1) is small enough (such as ones i suggested), |
| 23 |
then the c++ developers should be counted as c |
| 24 |
developers (because that part is common between |
| 25 |
c++ and c). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
3. apply occam's razor. if two languages are |
| 28 |
equally satisfying points (1) and (2), then |
| 29 |
choose the simplest one. but if my thought is |
| 30 |
correct (that we only need the subset of |
| 31 |
features in c++ that's already in c), then c is |
| 32 |
guaranteed to have a greater effective number |
| 33 |
of developers in step (2). hence, we will not |
| 34 |
even need to apply occam's razor to remove c++ |
| 35 |
(unless points (1) and (2) result in a tie, |
| 36 |
which i don't think it does in this case). |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> Lots of people want to use it. Just not people who want to write a PMS compliant package manager. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
probably same kind of people that are headed to |
| 41 |
blow their legs (and ours) in the process. |
Archives