News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (part II). Parent comment

Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (part II) by peterwwillis on Thursday August 30, 2012 @12:45PM (#4455479)
He never mentioned other languages, so no, I don't think that was his point. I think his point was that C++ makes it hard to make good choices about C++.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (part II) by tptacek on Thursday August 30, 2012 @12:50PM (#4455506)
I'm saying Java programmers make inappropriate data structure choices about Java programs, and boy do Ruby programmers ever make bad decisions in Ruby.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (part II) by peterwwillis on Thursday August 30, 2012 @02:15PM (#4455949)
I got that. Not very nice to say his point was dumb because you wanted to make a different one, though. I think we can all agree that C++ is annoying and leave it at that.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (part II) by tptacek on Thursday August 30, 2012 @02:57PM (#4456177)
Huh? I was sticking up for C++ (in this one context).
[ Parent | on HN ]