linuxaudio.org

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:58 AM, torbenh  wrote:

quoted text
> 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.
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.

 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?
Chris

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev