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

[Coda Highland <chighland@...>]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:47 AM, steve donovan
<steve.j.donovan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Tim Hill <drtimhill@gmail.com> wrote:
>> toward many+smaller source files). These days fewer+larger always seems to
>> me more sensible
>
> Totally - as Sean indicated, the style is appropriate for libraries
> that have to be linked in statically by dumb linkers, not for
> applications.
>
> C headers continue to irritate me, after all these years - the less of
> them the better!
>
> Mind you, the tendency can be taken too far (as everything). There is
> a micro-fashion for monolithic builds, which strikes me as silly,
> since one still wants the advantage of incremental fast builds, even
> if the (rare) full builds are longer.
>
> I've got more tolerance for big files than most (e.g. Lake as a single
> 3.5Kloc script) perhaps because I use bookmarks.  In the Lua world,
> there is little penalty for loads of little modules, but it leads to
> more 'accidental complexity' (Fred Brooks again).
>

I know I've already thrown my hat in as the C++ enthusiast here, but I
can't stand the enforced monolithic-ness that a lot of more-modern
languages seem to want to push on me. C#, Java, and Javascript always
make me feel like the source files are way too big, and I can't see an
API overview of an unfamiliar class without IDE support. (Javascript's
lack of a module system makes it even worse.) At least C# has partial
classes to help with breaking files up, but Java... ugh.

/s/ Adam