On 1/27/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:40:22AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't care about beauty, I > > care about readability and understandability. > > > > I find well written, well formatted Lisp to be quite readable. Same > > for C, Pascal, BASIC, and even FORTRAN up to a point. Even good > > assembly language can be readable. > > > > C++ gives me a headache to read, as did Ada, COBOL, FORTH and a few > > others. > > > > G > > That's strange - I find precisely the reverse to be true. > > Well-written C++ makes it very easy to see what is going on; > the structure and logic flow of any part of the program are > very clear, and not obscured by messy implementation details. > All that sort of stuff can be hidden inside object methods > (and with inlining there's not even a performance penalty). > > Mind you, the important qualifier there is "well-written". >
Not only that, you have to worry about getting too clever with operators. I.e. a = b; can have some unintended consequences. Novices can get carried away with C++'s standard template library and end up with a performance nightmare. > And trying to make sense of something like the C++ standard > template library is not an easy task; you need to understand > just about all the nuances and ramifications of the language > before diving into that. But understanding a program that > *uses* the template library is a whole lot easier. > > Sometimes, in fact, it can be *too* easy. If the abstraction > is done well a C++ program can appear deceptively simple. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
