> I've seen a lot of bad C++ in my life, and have seen Java people write C++ like they would Java.

Ah, don't remind me Java people write C++ like they write Java, I've seen my fair share, thank you.

> Writing good C++ is hard.

I concur, however writing good Java is also hard. e.g. Swing has a fixed and correct initialization/build sequence, and Java self-corrects if you diverge, but you get a noticeable performance hit. Most developers miss the signs and don't fix these innocent looking mistakes.

I've learnt C++ first and Java later. I also tend to hit myself pretty hard during testing (incl. Valgrind memory sanity and Cachegrind hotpath checks), so I don't claim I write impeccable C++. Instead I assume I'm worse than average and try to find what's wrong vigorously and fix them ruthlessly.

> Ah, don't remind me Java people write C++ like they write Java, I've seen my fair share, thank you.

I always find this remark amusing, given that Java adopted the common patterns in C++ toolkits that precedded Java.

If anything they are writting C++ like it used to be on Turbo Vision, Object Windows Library, MPW, PowerPlant, MFC, wxWindows,....

The remark is rooted from variable naming and code organization mostly. I've seen a C++ codebase transferred to a java developer, and he disregarded everything from the old codebase. Didn't refactor the old code, and the new additions were done Java Style. CamelCase file/variable/function names, every class on its own file with ClassName.cpp files littered everywhere, it was a mess.

The code was math-heavy, and became completely unreadable and un-followable. He remarked "I'm a java developer, I do what I do, and as long as it works, I don't care".

That was really bad. It was a serious piece of code, in production.

So basically " like it used to be on Turbo Vision, Object Windows Library, MPW, PowerPlant, MFC, wxWindows,..."