|
|
|
|
|
|
by shrimp_emoji
874 days ago
|
|
|
He was talking about not letting C++ code into the Linux kernel. As a C++ programmer, my cope for this is that back then's C++ was today's C#. It was the even-higher-level, comfier, shortcut language, loved by noobs and normies who aren't true hardcore nerds (identified by the masochism of choosing to write C) and write code that makes you cringe. (Although the situation is better today since C# excludes classes of errors C++ doesn't, so it actually IS friendlier than C while C++ merely gives you the illusion that it is. :p That it's often used as a beginner language blows my mind given how complicated it is once you get to learning it.) Today, I think C++ has been bled off of those people (who have since fled to higher levels of abstraction while only hardcore nerds harbor the masochism to have stuck to C++), and modern C++ has made the language so much more powerful, that it would be worthy of being in the kernel. That said, we have Rust, which is an even better replacement for C. |
|
|
https://github.com/shawnanastasio/BasilC/issues/9
> 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.
> In other words: the choice of C is the only sane choice. I know Miles Bader jokingly said "to piss you off", but it's actually true. I've come to the conclusion that any programmer that would prefer the project to be in C++ over C is likely a programmer that I really would prefer to piss off, so that he doesn't come and screw up any project I'm involved with.
Here's another article that's quoting from it as well.
https://fossbytes.com/linux-creator-linus-torvalds-c-program...
I don't doubt he's ranted about it in other places but the rant I remember is definitely the git one :)