[HN Gopher] Bjarne Stroustrup Quotes
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Bjarne Stroustrup Quotes
        
       Author : asymmetric
       Score  : 58 points
       Date   : 2023-11-26 20:27 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.stroustrup.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.stroustrup.com)
        
       | jll29 wrote:
       | "We didn't have time for that." (Bjarne Stroustrup, before an
       | invited talk, Cambridge Computer Lab)
       | 
       | (in response to my complaint to him that hastables again hadn't
       | been included in the most recent standard at the time.)
        
       | zabzonk wrote:
       | C++ is my favourite programming language precisely because one of
       | its main designers is so sensible.
        
         | IshKebab wrote:
         | Yeah mine too until Rust. But part of that sensibleness was
         | making it backwards compatible with C, which entails a mountain
         | of inherited design mistakes.
         | 
         | I wonder what his blank slate language would have looked like.
        
           | koolba wrote:
           | C++ is not backwards compatible with C. It's mostly
           | compatible, but it's not completely compatible like say
           | Objective C which is a strict superset of C.
        
             | PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
             | honestly, no one cares about splitting that hair. Most
             | valid C programs will compile in C++ and believe it or not,
             | binary logic is not the only logic humans are capable of.
        
               | zabzonk wrote:
               | actually, i reckon that most, if any, c programs will not
               | compile with c++, without at least some (possibly not
               | difficult) modifications
        
               | tsimionescu wrote:
               | Almost every C program does `int *c = malloc(sizeof(int)
               | *10)` or similar, which has always been invalid C++.
        
             | IshKebab wrote:
             | They have diverged _slightly_ in the years since C++ was
             | introduced. But at the time the incompatibilities were
             | _extremely_ small. Even today they are pretty small and GCC
             | /Clang will happily compile C constructs (e.g. designated
             | initialisers, VLAs) with just a warning.
             | 
             | Actually you need `-Wpedantic` to even get a warning for
             | both of those. (And `-std=c++17` since designated
             | initialisers are actually in C++20.)
        
         | pjmlp wrote:
         | Until C++98 came to be, nowadays, regardless of how sensible
         | Bjarne Stroustoup happens to be, his opinion is a vote among
         | 300 or so.
         | 
         | Remember the Vasa paper happened for a reason.
        
           | zabzonk wrote:
           | of course, but he is still very influential. better than
           | languages that have no standard at all.
        
       | Dudester230602 wrote:
       | Let's also not forget this:
       | https://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/I_did_it_for_you_all
        
         | Borg3 wrote:
         | Haha.. Classic :D I remember reading it back in the days...
        
         | jacquesm wrote:
         | That's a very nice find. I love that kind of candor about
         | motivations on why software is written the way it is written.
         | ;)
         | 
         | I probably have a few confessions to make myself...
         | 
         | But the royalties are just too good.
        
           | emmelaich wrote:
           | I don't find it at all insightful or humorous.
           | 
           | (I hope you don't think it's genuine)
        
             | jacquesm wrote:
             | > I don't find it at all insightful or humorous.
             | 
             | Humor isn't an absolute. I find it funny because if
             | Stroustrup had tried he probably couldn't have made a
             | language with more footguns, there are so many things in
             | there that require a lot of discipline _not_ to use (or
             | overuse). At the same time it was a supremely useful
             | language that allowed for much better abstraction than C
             | ever did but it definitely came with a price.
             | 
             | > (I hope you don't think it's genuine)
             | 
             | Wait, what, that wasn't real???
        
       | chubot wrote:
       | _Language design is a curious mixture of grand ideas and fiddly
       | details_
       | 
       | I hadn't heard this last one before, but it's SO right ...
       | 
       | I always wondered why JS and PHP and Perl got so many details
       | "wrong" (e.g. with Perl, one definition of "wrong" is that Perl 6
       | / Raku didn't make the same design choice)
       | 
       | Turns out there's an avalanche of details, and they interact in
       | many ways!
       | 
       | Python did better, but I strongly argue both Python 3 and Python
       | 2 got strings wrong. (Array of code points isn't generally
       | useful, and it's hard to implement efficiently. See fish shell
       | discussion about wchar_t on the front page now; also see Guile
       | Scheme)
       | 
       | OCaml seems to have gotten mutable strings wrong (for some time),
       | and also I think the split between regular sum types and GADTs is
       | awkward. And also most people argue that objects vs. records vs.
       | modules is suboptimal. And a bunch of mistakes with syntactic
       | consistency, apparently.
       | 
       | Looks like almost every language had problems with for loops and
       | closures, including C# and Go -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37575204
       | 
       | So basically I agree that plowing through all the details -- and
       | really observing their consequences in real programs -- is more
       | important and time-consuming than grand ideas.
       | 
       | But if you lack any grand ideas, then the language will probably
       | turn out poorly too. And you probably won't have any reason to
       | finish it.
        
         | gautamcgoel wrote:
         | Can you explain how you think strings should work?
        
         | k__ wrote:
         | Languages have trends too.
         | 
         | Weak typing/Implicit conversion was cool in the 90s.
         | 
         | JS and PHP would have magnitudes better if they were typed like
         | Python, but that's history.
        
           | hipadev23 wrote:
           | PHP does have strict typing, and JS effectively since
           | everyone writes TS anymore.
        
       | getpost wrote:
       | I'll see you Bjarne Stroustrup, and raise you Alan Kay,
       | 
       | "Actually I made up the term "object-oriented", and I can tell
       | you I did not have C++ in mind."
       | 
       | https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alan_Kay
        
         | fosforsvenne wrote:
         | Bjarne didn't have Alan in mind when designing C++ either.
        
       | fuzztester wrote:
       | Shooting yourself in the foot in various programming languages.
       | 
       | http://www.toodarkpark.org/computers/humor/shoot-self-in-foo...
        
       | lmedinas wrote:
       | "There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain
       | about and the ones nobody uses".
       | 
       | He is right on this one. Pretty much in every discussion about
       | Programming Languages people write how good Rust is and complain
       | about how bad C++ is but the reality is, C++ it's one of the most
       | used languages in the world.
       | 
       | This quote could be a very harsh reply to Rust vs C++.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-11-26 23:00 UTC)