C++ bad-mouthing (was: Why learn Python ??)

Graham Dumpleton grahamd at dscpl.com.au
Tue Jan 13 11:39:48 CET 2004


claird at lairds.com (Cameron Laird) wrote in message news:<10064loqc7sd7e3 at corp.supernews.com>...
> In article <7xisjh1e3i.fsf at ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
> Paul Rubin  <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> 			.
> 			.
> 			.
> >I'd say don't bother with C++ unless you're working on a big
> >multi-person project.  Its design will make no sense to you unless
> >you've faced the problems that come up in those projects.  Otherwise
> >it's a big mess.
> 			.
> 			.
> 			.
> And if you *are* working on a big multi-person project, and you
> choose C++, you're likely to end up with ... a big mess.
> 
> I get to say so.  I'm fond of C++, and have seen plenty of pro-
> jects which rely on it.  I've also seen the teams assigned to
> such projects ...

Would agree that more often than not it is the programmers working
on the project. I have met very very few programmers who I thought
had what it takes to develop decent C++ code which is understandable
and maintainable. Part of the problem though is not the programmers
but the C++ libraries they have to work with. Even though the
STL may be the "standard template library", it is pretty dangerous stuff.
Your average programmer however will tell you it is wonderful stuff
and never understand its danger and how one can so easily create
huge disasters with it. Part of the utility of Python is thus not so much
the language itself, but the availability of useful modules to go with
it. I wouldn't say all the Python modules are perfect, some could
certainly have done with a bit more thought, but it certainly gives
a Python programmer a head start over a C++ programmer.



More information about the Python-list mailing list