Linus vs C++, again

Re:Linus vs C++, again by jongraehl on Thursday June 10, 2010 @06:38PM (#1422008)

Because the Linux kernel is so important, and so difficult to replace, people will put up with whatever language inconveniences they must in order to get their contribution accepted.

Therefore, I don't see Linus' choice as having any larger significance.

I already know that C++ is a vastly superior language to C for small to medium scale programs where computational time+space efficiency is paramount.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linus vs C++, again by _0ffh on Friday June 11, 2010 @12:37AM (#1422819)

Come again, please? All computational time+space efficiency of C++ comes from the "C", not the "++" part!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linus vs C++, again by jongraehl on Friday June 11, 2010 @03:45PM (#1424487)

You misunderstand - I'm just qualifying the experience I'm speaking from.

I've used both languages, but only when time and space efficiency can't be sacrificed.

I've never worked on a large program in either.

Under those conditions, I know from experience that C++ is better. It allows me to abstract safely (I benefit from some compile time type-checking) with little or no run-time cost.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linus vs C++, again by Daramarak on Friday June 11, 2010 @05:50AM (#1423344)

Excuse me but C++ is only vastly superior of C if you are a C++ programmer and do not know C. I am a C++ programmer, and I would never make such a claim. And for time and space efficiency? That doesn't make sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linus vs C++, again by jongraehl on Friday June 11, 2010 @03:46PM (#1424490)

I know C and C++ very well. I don't use either language unless I need to be as efficient as possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]