On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:24:17AM +0100, Chris Cannam wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:58 AM, torbenh <torb...@gmx.de> wrote: > > well... for me, saying c++, is saying boost. boost and modern c++ is what > > makes c++ better than java. > > java is a pretty great language nowadays (with generics and annotators > > and stuff). my big problem with java is that its stdlib is really a big > > mess. > > I always thought the big chunk of new stuff added in Java 1.5 was a > really bad idea. That took a compact, comprehensible language that > lacked a number of convenient features but at least had a single > "school of practice", and gave it the capacity for the same sort of > fragmentation as you have in C++. But I haven't done Java development > in earnest since that stuff became widespread, so I don't know whether > that's really happened in practice.
i dont know which features you mean. but not having typesafe containers like pre generics, puts the language on par with python for me. (except that in python i dont need to cast everything to the correct type after pulling it out of a container :S > Reading a language is (for most projects) more important than writing > it. You yourself took the jackdmp code (in C++) and ported it back to > good old C because it was written "from the wrong school of C++" and > you found C easier to work with. Jackdmp is not exactly weird code -- > it's written rather like pre-1.5 Java -- but its C++ is just not the > same C++ as you use. Similarly, for someone like me who has used Qt > for many years, Boost has always seemed largely superfluous and the > language that for you "is C++" is for me something a little bit alien. the language i am referring too is termed "modern c++" also i didnt port the jackdmp code. tschack is pretty different from jack2. i also only used boost because these parts of boost are going to show up in the STL. modern c++ heavily leverages templates and they were anticipating concepts to show up in c++0x which would have improved the error messages associated with template code. we wont have concepts. thats a bit sad. but this doesnt stop people from writing code in a concept oriented way. > Is it possible to write C++ in such a way that every competent C++ > developer is happy to work with the results without some sort of > re-education? classic C++ and "modern c++" are two pairs of shoes. if your afraid of writing templates. modern c++ is not for you. for me templates are an integral part of c++. but i am also pretty annoyed if i read the compiler output asm and directly see somthing i could do better when i wrote the asm myself. i only do that for inner loops. but i also stop the heavy templating at some point and just write rather classic gui code then, or just wrap the whole bunch into a python extension. -- torben Hohn _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
