"C++ sucks" has become a bit of a meme around here. The upsides outweigh the downsides for a surprising number of cases. Every alternative is either immature, doesn't solve the use case that needs C++ or doesn't have the required libraries/tools.
There are people that sit back and bash C++ and then there are people that just roll up their sleeves and build really cool things with it. I'd certainly rather be in the second camp. I wouldn't mind having a simpler, more elegant language with the same design tradeoffs but that language doesn't yet exist.
My experience with legacy C++: Main problem with C++ is that it has lots of accidental complexity and a relatively weak standard feature set. The lava layer pattern is apparently very hard avoid in old applications. Due to the aforementioned weaknesses the lava layering now applies also to the modules that would be standard static modules in other languages. So it's a bit wastefull.
But since lava layering is caused by cultural and architectural issues I cannot claim that the system would be in any better shape just if some other language had been used.
Nobody I know. People I know that use C++ every day will admit it has issues but are also realistic enough to understand that any language with the same design constraints and long history as C++ will be complex.
It's the catbirds in the gallery that don't actually have to write the kind of apps that require a language like C++ that "bash" it.
But for projects that don't view those design constraints as very important and projects created when there were other languages that don't have the same history those compromises/explanations won't help. If/when there is a better language you don't have to suffer the history of C++ anymore, just use a newer language without the history. And if the constraints for example were to make it C compatible and very fast, for many projects those may not be of much importance anymore. Other language may be fast enough and easier to write in. I think it is probable that most of todays applications has lower speed requirements than C++ were aiming for. Those who needs speed can probably still use C.
This is my point exactly. I'd consider both git and the Linux kernel tough projects, so the choice of the programming language is interesting. More so, given his stance on C++.
How come it's interesting ? Linus has always been a C -programmer, and kernel space is something where you want to keep things simple and access tha raw bits of things, so C is a natural choice.
And if you've been programming C for 20 years or more, writing git with C feels like a natural solution.
It's not always about writing stuff with the most high definition solution, it's more about expressing ideas with the tools you know also.
> 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.
Quintessential Linus, but I wouldn't call this an "evaluation"... :)
