[ECOS] c++ ecos performance
Rosimildo da Silva
Sat Mar 9 07:34:00 GMT 2002
From: "Grant Edwards" <email@example.com>
To: "Mike Moran" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "eCos Discussion" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOS] c++ ecos performance
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 02:45:55PM -0500, Mike Moran wrote:
> > > [I don't like C++ much as a language (in the abstract) as I
> > > think it's too complex and too unsafe. But, I must say that
> > > the guys who wrote eCos used it well.]
> > Yikes! "Too complex"? "too unsafe"? Excuse me for reacting to this
> > flame bait, but this is pure bunk,
> I don't like C++ from a language-design viewpoint. I think
> that trying to retain backwards compatibility with C was a huge
> mistake. I think it's too complex and too unsafe. Both of those
> statements are 100% true.
> > and I get tired of this unjustified attitude. C++ provides many
> > features as a means to solve various types of problems
> > encountered in software engineering.
> This isn't really the right forum, but I think C++ provides too
> many features and provides them in ways that are too easy to
> misunderstand and unintentionally misuse. Something like
> Modula- or even Ada are, IMO, better designed languages if
> you want a compiled, imperitive/procedural lanugage. Scheme,
> Smalltalk, and Python are some others that I think are well
> > Best of all, if you don't want the feature, you don't have to
> > use it.
In my 15 years doing C++, the biggest problem all along is really
the lack of understanding of OO principles.
Most of the code that I've seen, written in C++ is "C" code written
using a C++ compiler, and it uses classes as "namespaces".
I dare to ask: what is "unsafe" in C++ that is not in C ?
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss
More information about the Ecos-discuss