Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mono Developers Regret Doing Moonlight In C++

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mono Developers Regret Doing Moonlight In C++

    Phoronix: Mono Developers Regret Doing Moonlight In C++

    Yesterday Phoronix was the first to widely report on the news this week that Cairo is being looked at for a potential 2D drawing C++ standard. It's still being evaluated by the ISO C++ standards committee but it's an interesting topic and already drew lots of feedback. Now Miguel de Icaza of Mono fame has chimed in on the matter...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU1OTY

  • #2
    I thought Moonlight was written in C#...

    Comment


    • #3
      I wonder to which language is he making the comparison. C? C#?

      Comment


      • #4
        The only thing i dislike about c++ i that it exists.

        Joking aside, i would use c++ if c and c++ was one language.
        In the end we all pick language that has all libs we need, the speed difference is not that huge(if you are not using script languages, ofc)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Honton View Post
          C++ is the only kind of prison that will make the time go backwards while entropy increases. The thermodynamic equilibrium for C++ is the 80s and a self sustained nuclear melt down. C++ is the Chernobyl of code writing.
          This was... beautiful.

          Originally posted by Nobu
          I thought Moonlight was written in C#...
          No, the Moonlight runtime is written in C++. It's one of the reasons it sucks.

          Comment


          • #6
            C++ in general sucks. Only "IT guys" who never touch code tend to think otherwise.

            It is not that it doesn't have its uses. It does. But more often than not, people overestimate its performance and underestimate its problems...

            Comment


            • #7
              So much C++ hate, but I vastly prefer it to C, Java, C#, PHP, and Shell - all of which have gaping wounds just as badly as C++ does, but at least with C++11 I can just write everything like Python code and only do the ugly smear of crap on the dash every couple hundred lines.

              Comment


              • #8
                Traditionally 2 types of bullshit(ters) have to follow after such an article: that C++ sucks or that it is better than C. In the Unix world the 1st type of bullshitters prevails, in the window$ world - the 2nd.

                Comment


                • #9
                  TemplarGR and mark45, care to elaborate on what you dislike with C++, and disclose your language(s) of choice?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    C++ as opposed to what? C?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      FUD

                      IMHO, this post if just FUD. Let's say regarding "better performance", "memory usage", ... it's comparing C++ with C. Off course, one won't expect to gain much if anything adopting one over the other. C++ is a language to that aims to allow *NO OVERHEAD* over C, but not *LESS OVERHEAD*. So... showing off that to diminish C++ has no point.

                      Let's say regarding "better performance", "memory usage", ... it's comparing C++/C over C#/Java/AnyCurrent-GC-VM-PL and that it's a bad choice in that regard. As of now, I don't see anyone in its right mind chosing the last when it's really necessary to have memory control and performance at hand. I mean, for cases when that's really necessary.

                      Just a few days ago didn't a microsoft employ talk about a new c# based language that gains in performance over plain c# because of tactics of precise memory management etc, generally found in C++, Rust, C etc, but generally missed in C#, Java, etc?

                      Also, currently C++ allows one do adopt many kinds of programming interfaces, one can abuse templates (some think of using that to gain runtime performance and slow compilation times... which I find suspicios), one can have functional style interfaces, expecting lambda arguments and the like, one can have C interfaces, whatever. So, talking a language is bad solely because a given library in that language doesn't particularly fulfill your expectations doesn't have any merit.

                      I'm not saying C++ is good or bad, I'm just saying I only see FUD in that post, and I'm generally convinced by better argumentation.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mark45 View Post
                        Traditionally 2 types of bullshit(ters) have to follow after such an article: that C++ sucks or that it is better than C. In the Unix world the 1st type of bullshitters prevails, in the window$ world - the 2nd.
                        There's a 3rd kind....the ones that prefer BASIC-like language

                        They were born in the Dark Ages of C=64 and Sinclair ZX Spectrum


                        ....yeah....i'm one of them

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          one of C++ design principle is that you do not pay for features that you do not use. You can do C with C++ if you want.

                          Most C++ features can be implemented in a C program but most of the time, I'm willing to trade dev time, complexity and performance for builtin feature that are easy to use. Maybe C dynamic array management code are faster than STL vector but why would someone prefer to pepper boilerplate code all around the code when STL vector usage is clean and the performance edge that C would give isn't needed?

                          That is the theory. In practice, I have seen very ugly C++ code around. Like an hell of indirection across meaningless abstract interfaces, design patterns. I also hate a deep layers of shitty classes hierarchy but when the code is ugly, you can usually blame the programmer not the language. You know what, I have seen really really bad C code as well. C++ doesn't have monopoly in bad code department.

                          The other annoying part of C++ is that the C++ language can be so complex that there exist people tagged as language 'lawyers'. To my knowledge, only C++ has these annoying people that know everything.

                          At the end of the day, using C++ make my job fun and easier. I just avoid to overuse senselessly all the language possibilities and all is fine.

                          If a program performance sucks. Blame the programmer not the language.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by lano1106 View Post
                            I'm willing to trade dev time, complexity and performance for builtin feature that are easy to use
                            There is a single point that I find strange here, which is trading dev time for easy to use builtin features. Isn't the idea of using these to reduce dev time?
                            Also, complexity, but it's more that the term is ambiguous than something that sounds weird: I don't know if you mean the actual computational complexity (which may be increased by these features) or complexity as in how hard to read is the code, in which case I think it's pretty much the same thing, using easier constructs leads to simpler (in readability) code.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I would rather use Java with a bit of C for the critical parts (if any). C++ is probably the most hated programming language besides Perl, but that does not count as a programming language

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X