I like very much articles and videos smashing C++ and object oriented paradigm as it is now.
Here an example of video about OOP, it goes by the title of Object-Oriented Programming is Embarrassing. Woa.
Don’t take me wrong: OOP can be good. Just not used so much and how it is often used.
And about C++, not strictly related to OOP, but the story is this: I hated the language until C++11, when I started to see hope. But now, I doubt the path is “totally” correct. I mean, there are still good stuffs added even in the latest revision (few things come late, but better late than never, right?), but it seems to me it’s going too fast. They should slow down and think a little bit more before they add something they will deprecate later. And in the meantime, developer can let the new things sink better in their mindset.
So far, I “have” few chess engines which are pure vaporware, with the only exception of one, which did play against itself, but it was a mess already and then it was scratched away.
By そらみみ (Soramimi) - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47231683
I’ve already talked a little bit about Ada++ — just a waste of time, in my opinion.
Somebody once told me that he liked C because you can write
where other languages require
I don’t see the problem, but imagine that the variable to be incremented is longer:
Well, in Ada 2020 you can write
(Yes, Ada 2020, not in Ada 2012… GNAT already support
-gnat2020 and this feature, but I suppose you must check what else is supported before embracing anything in Ada 2020.)
Let’s say it again: Ada++ syntax is a silly idea
Silly to say the least.
Now I’ve stumbled on A Modern Syntax For Ada and had goose bumps and thrills along my spine.
Before spitting on that job of Adacore’s core members, luckly I’ve read that it’s just a April Fool Prank.
Now I feel better.
But let’s compare the idea of this prank with Ada++…
Ada++ embraces part of those ideas scolded in the april fool prank!
- pointless shortening (here
fn… Ada++ has
So, I hope I am not alone when I say that Ada++ is a horrible idea and hopefully I won’t be the only one rage rejecting it.
I don’t think one should learn a programming language just because it is well paid. A programming language is just a tool, you can use it well or bad, to build or destroy, to make life great or miserable to your future self and your collegues — and your employer, I forgot to mention it…
But real life, alas, works like this: you choose your tools not just because they are the best to do what you want to do: you choose them because there’s someone willing to pay you to use them, even if they aren’t the best tools for the job — but, you know, everybody’s using this, or that, or that, or that…
Maybe that explains the success of certain languages and their ecosystems: nobody thinks to ask if they are the right tool anymore… At least, that’s so when the product isn’t, indeed, critically bound to such a technical choice, and hence market- and money-induced blindness don’t waste everything… Apparently…
Anyway, if I were you, I wouldn’t enrich my skillset just looking at boring lists of most paid this or that. It’s a dangerous path (maybe not for the wealth, but for the health of the consultants’ built digital world, it kind of is.)
Articles with titles like “Top N something” are almost click-bait. Be prepared to read BS — which doesn’t mean there isn’t some research and value in those words.
Well, do you really want to become rich programmer? Then, maybe the article Top 10 highest-paying programming languages in 2020 appeals to this secret desire.
Writing something in texinfo, it happens that I can’t use
@subentry for the index. It seems Ubuntu 19.10 has an old texinfo. So I downloaded the latest and wanted to purge the old one. But:
$ sudo apt-get remove texinfo [sudo] password for user: Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done ... The following packages will be REMOVED: cantor-backend-octave dynare liboctave-dev lilypond lilypond-data matlab2tikz octave octave-bim octave-biosig octave-bsltl octave-cgi octave-communications octave-communications-common octave-control octave-data-smoothing octave-dataframe octave-dicom octave-divand octave-doctest octave-econometrics octave-financial octave-fits octave-fpl octave-fuzzy-logic-toolkit octave-ga octave-gdf octave-general octave-geometry octave-gsl octave-image octave-image-acquisition octave-instrument-control octave-interval octave-io octave-level-set octave-linear-algebra octave-lssa octave-ltfat octave-ltfat-common octave-mapping octave-miscellaneous octave-missing-functions octave-mpi octave-msh octave-mvn octave-nan octave-ncarray octave-netcdf octave-nlopt octave-nurbs octave-octclip octave-octproj octave-openems octave-optics octave-optim octave-optiminterp octave-parallel octave-pfstools octave-plplot octave-psychtoolbox-3 octave-quaternion octave-queueing octave-secs1d octave-secs2d octave-secs3d octave-signal octave-sockets octave-sparsersb octave-specfun octave-splines octave-statistics octave-stk octave-strings octave-struct octave-symbolic octave-tsa octave-vibes octave-vlfeat octave-vrml octave-zenity octave-zeromq texinfo texlive-full
Why? Why removing
texinfo should bring down the whole
texlive-full and whole pieces of
octave and… WTF. Idiotic, nonsense dependencies.
So I will keep that old texinfo. And Ubuntu has one more angle to push me towards their personal nightmare (I mean, snaps).
Weeks ago I digged into one of my dad’s hard drive on his Microsoft Windows office machine, searching for interesting stuffs he could have left there. Since I hadn’t the time to cope with all the amount of data found there, I did a simple
dir /s ... >a_file.txt
(or something like this) to have a list to check against the content of other hard drives at home. Likely what’s there was already copied here.
Not very much time ago I commented on a post on LinkedIn. The post promoted the “Ada++” language as some sort of better Ada. As an Ada hobby newcomer who began to like the language very much (and who started to consider C++ acceptable in its modern revisions, and yet continues to think not very much of that really important and powerful language), I felt horrified. Ada isn’t perfect, nothing is perfect, but the comment made me think it was almost all because of the syntax. What’s wrong with Ada’s syntax? According to me, nothing; and on the other side there’s C++, which to me is a syntax nightmare.
One month later or so, I stumbled on that comment again and took a look (again!) to the Ada++ website. Looking around… again… I confirmed my first impression that the idea is horrorful, even if it would about syntax only.
Do we want a C++-syntax-like language? What’s the value in this? Will C++ developer feel more comfortable? Why not a C++ada language where C++ imitates Ada’s syntax, just to make Ada developers more comfortable with C++…?