Re: C++ religious war (was: llua Higher-level C API for Lua)

[Coroutines <coroutines@...>]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 3:58 AM, steve donovan
<steve.j.donovan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Coroutines <coroutines@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree here, I remember a big point of Go was much shorter build
>> times.  Being able to rewrite an expansive C++ project in Go and not
>> waiting half a way for the build to finish.
>
> People think this is a second-order consideration, but I'd rather be
> up and testing rather than playing with light sabres while my code
> compiles.  There are different 'cognitive styles' among programmers,
> and I seem to fall into the 'attention deficit' end.  These styles
> cannot be ranked with ability, or with effectiveness; they are another
> dimension.
>
> The given reason for longer compile-link cycle is that we are getting
> a better executable, both more thoroughly checked and optimized.
> However, in the case of C++, the longer compile cycle is a
> self-inflicted wound because of the ancient build system (here the C
> legacy has hurt C++).  We tend to make a virtue out of necessity, but
> C++ need not take so long to build, and its modern "successors" are
> generally quicker and have cleaner designs (e.g Nimrod, which has the
> same heavy emphasis on compile-time metaprogramming).
>
> Ultimately, this debate won't be settled by comparing specifications,
> but by market share, and there "worse is better" will dominate.  We
> may regret this, but the fact remains that the programming languages
> which are exciting and different are also harder to learn[1], and
> often require a love of theory.  We can take heart from that insight
> from Paul Graham, that when you are working on the server side in a
> rapidly-changing world, a 'secret weapon' can be most effective for
> small start-ups.   Like the old New Yorker cartoon suggests, on the
> Internet no-one knows you're running Lua on the back-end.
>
> [1] e.g. world-wide shortage of good C++ programmers, leading to quiet
> programmers on the edge of the developed world being approached by
> large multinationals ;)
>

Hmm, as an offhand: I usually get pretty frustrated with build systems
(like make and autotools).  In my experience build systems try to
cover every error a build can have, but in ways that make the error
you would normally expect be unrecognizable.  Some things are easy to
understand, but it's 7 years later and I still have trouble with make.
 ((((fuck you make)))) :(