I would edit my ignore list, but I think in short order it will not be necessary anyway.

@wigums: its better to just ignore some people here.

1 members found this post helpful.

Maybe I have not been properly trained to use C++ compared to C for performance.

AND You know our friend

http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus

100% right

Notice that he didn't say anything about performance.

Oh and as for Rust? It's perfect for the command-line and TUI apps that we Slackware users all love to use. I've already posted links to two (RipGrep and Exa). I also started a Rust thread in Programming (with two tutorial links) a year back.

https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...st-4175577466/

OMG, this again
just shows that Linus has also a competence limits, and btw, his dive program UI is build on Qt, for a person that hates C++ a interesting choice
http://www.embedded.com/electronics-...r-rejecting-C-
AND my friend feel free to just focus on information that support your incorrect view and information level.
who cares that the game industry moved to C++ for performance reasons over a decade ago, that google and facebook and other HPC interested companies use C++ everywhere there where they need performance to spare the famous 1%, that there is extensive research going on in how to optimize C++ even more and evolve the language (C++11/14/17/20) while the interest in C is in best case limited, and other facts like this, who needs this when there are opinions like your ones.

Are you sure about that?

I've deliberately tried to avoid C++ development, but in 2010 and 2011 my employer had me working on technology with a dependency on a service (called IDOL) which used boost, which needed to be built to run on a variety of platforms.

Getting this to compile proved to be an incredible chore. Success was dependent on platform architecture (32-bit vs 64-bit), also the version of the boost library, and also the version of gcc used to compile it.

For each platform, I ended up iterating through every combination of a nontrivial set of boost + gcc versions trying to find the magical working combination. To make matters worse, success could not be detected at compile-time. IDOL had to run for a while, processing datasets, before exhibiting the bad behavior (segfaulting). The segfault occurred deep within the boost call stack.

So, from my own experience, he's at least spot-on correct about boost's problems.

He's a practical, hands-on programmer with oodles of experience. I've seen him express intolerance of other technologies, too, with which I have had bad experiences. None of his claims seem outrageous. I've seen similar problems in other languages, where nice abstractions frequently conceal horrendous implementations. I've seen language communities, which seem to draw bad programmers and encourage bad practices. So these are credible problems a language might have.

Given all that, do I have reason to doubt his assessment?

4 members found this post helpful.

FWIW I'm running bassmadrigal's compile of 55.0.1 in 14.2 stable and no issues so far. It does seem to run better than the provided esr version.

1 members found this post helpful.

not at all, always trust your own experience. in this case linus proves to have taste (even though git sucks).

the other pages at http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/ are a funny read, too. cat-v is a treasure box.

btw. go was created to replace c++ at google. i wouldn't touch c++ even if someone would pay me for doing so. having to deal with boost makes things even more unbearable.

1 members found this post helpful.

yes, it might be not popular, but every humans competence has limits, so my claim is not a risk ;-)

also, when you have a bad day in 2007, and use the bad weekend experience from 1992 to rant about a group of people and a programming language with- at this time already provable- technical wrong arguments, than it becomes obvious that this post has some technical issues.
However, I do not assume that Linus, even if he got some details wrong in 2007, was aware of the fact that his post will be abused that often by people with limited knowledge about facts for spreading wrong information about C and C++ in the internet.
Linus addressed a certain comment of a person with this post to shut up a discussion before it started, not to bring technical arguments for why C is superior to C++.
Unfortunately, people misuse this post over and over again to 'prove' a point, like it happened above.
So for me it is mostly the people that link to this post without understanding its meaning/context that are a problem.


oh, and @ttk,
I am well aware of persons that can not compile boost on windows, which is to due to the stupid way MS is handling ABI compatibility on Windows between compiler versiosn and even build versions. MS C++ simply sucks.

but I use boost since 2003 on Linux and on more than one architecture, never ever had those problems you are talking about. So please, do not put your personal bad experience of some dubios IDOL library on the tools you use which work for so many other people. This has no relation to boost or C++, just to the people that made this thing you had problems with

Hey a4z, since you like c++ maybe you can answer this burning question from dederon's link?

that's simple, nothing that actually exist. It is just a row of keywords without any sense to impress clueless people like you.

Tom Cargill was one of The SCO Group's expert witnesses, so I guess he's right at home here in the Thread Of Derp.

Attached Thumbnails

 

4 members found this post helpful.

I said it was personal experience.
I'm not against C++ development.
But in this age and time, competences change and I still think the programming language you choose is important for the right job.
C++ is not used as a general purpose language as C.

C is great to write a kernel, C++ is great to build GUI and some other stuff such as QT but rust is great to build servo.