Hi, I've got some code on the internet, which are C++ libraries, and sometimes it happens that I get an email from someone who asks if it's possible to have a C version. I've tried to convert one of my libraries to C once, but I gave up when I realized how bad the code started looking: not that C is bad, but it feels really bad to have nice C++ code that is very readable and uses classes and the STL, and then convert it to C where everything is much more limited, and you're basically converting all your classes to structs and convert member functions into functions that take the struct as first parameter, and don't have std::strings at all and have written some sort of replacement for std::vector that is also a struct with std::vector-like functions that uses malloc and realloc and such everywhere, but has to use void*'s to avoid code duplication since there are no templates in C. And did I mention how ugly the comments start looking if you can't even use "//" style comments? Or the thing where you have to declare all variables first, only then write the code? This all helps making code that was nice, into something less nice, which caused me to give up the conversion to C effort and keep my libraries C++. Anyway, I wonder, why are there people who need C? Maybe it is because Linus Torvalds has something against C++? I looked that up in Google, and found this: http://emonk.debianuruguay.org/?p=42 It's from september 2007, so very recent! In it is a lot of C++-bashing, including things like this:

Quote:C++ is a horrible language. It’s made more horrible by the fact that a lot of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it’s much much easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out, that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.

As well as this:

Quote:- infinite amounts of pain when they don’t work (and anybody who tells me that STL and especially Boost are stable and portable is just so full of BS that it’s not even funny)

I use STL everywhere, how's it not portable? My code compiles on all major OS platforms. C++ makes everything much nicer IMHO while C has a lot of annoying limits. Why is C++ so hated in a lot of the open source world?

His first quote seems well-justified to me (the second one, less so). By most measures, C++ is a horrible language that can be coaxed into doing beautiful things. It is akin to Frankenstein's monster: a patchwork of features sewn together with very little cohesion and many lousy interactions. Besides, it's difficult to use it because of its many inherent pitfalls, which leads to the existence of many extremely bad programmers.

But that is not a serious reason. There are two serious reasons why C is used instead of C++ for Unix systems programming.

The first reason is historical: the Unix dynasty of operating systems was mostly developed in C, and so systems programming today is done in an environment where most legacy code is C code, where most system applications are small standalone bits of code which interact with existing C bits of code, and where most developers are fluent in C and perhaps one or two shell scripting languages (SH, sed, awk, PERL...). In such an environment, attempting to develop a systems-level tool in C++ will cause problems: interaction with C legacy code reduces the scope of any benefits derived from using C++, and interaction with a C developer base reduces the user base of your program.

The second reason is practical: while C++ is a fairly decent application development language, it's a very bad systems programming language. C++ is too complex and too rigid to support the number one activity of many open source system administrators: hacking (in the MIT sense).

Quote:Original post by Lode
http://emonk.debianuruguay.org/?p=42

It's from september 2007, so very recent!

This only reenforces an opinion I got from reading quite a few of Thorvalds posts on kernel dev mailing lists: he is actually not the programming god many enthusiasts would make him to be. He is a highly unprofessional, arrogant, incompetent asshole. There, I said it.

Of course, there are many things that can be said about C++, both good and bad (probably more bad than good though ;). Arguments from both sides have there merits. However, Thorvalds has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. If you don't know shit about the language you are ranting about, and your only motivation against it is your zealotry, then you'd better shut up. The fact that he presents his arguments with the eloquence of a five year old child doesn't really help his credibility either.

God, this guy really goes on my nerves.

Quote:
Part ignorance, part incompetence

Add a good dose of zealotry induced cognitive dissonance to that.

I'd really like to hear Thorvalds opinion on C#. Not for kernel development obviously, just as a general purpose language.

Quote:Original post by Crypter

Quote:
C is just more convenient for kernel development

I personally find C++ more convenient for kernel development over C, tbh. (I personally use MSVC++ 2005 for my kernel) This is all opinion, of course.

C# is much ore convenient for kernel development.. linus torvalds is really old-minded.. :)

oh, and btw, if you think, it's a joke.. google for singularity.. i really like c# kernels :)