
Oct. 14, 1985: C++ Adds to Programming - duck
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/10/1014cplusplus-released
======
BrandonM
He gives some good advice at the very end:

 _Know your fundamentals (algorithms, data structures, machine architecture,
systems) and know several programming languages to the point where you can use
them idiomatically.

Know some non-computer field of study well — math, biology, history, optics,
whatever. Learn to communicate effectively in speech and in writing. Spend an
unreasonable amount of time on some difficult topic to really master it. Try
to do something that might make a difference in the world._

------
philwelch
_Sometimes, it is more important to have the right problem than the best
solution._

Perhaps unwittingly, this statement fits C++ perfectly. It's popular to
criticize C++'s design, but it solves the right problem for a lot of people,
and that is why it's still very widely used.

~~~
jrockway
I have a keyboard whose motto is "good feeling of oneness with cup rubber". I
feel like C++ could have a similar slogan -- "good feeling of oneness with my
imagination". People choose C++ because they want speed, and then they assume
that no matter what they do, they'll get it. But what I've found is that after
you add smart pointers and perl-compatible regexes and STL and ..., your code
does not run fast anymore. You think it does, because hey, C++ is fast... but
it doesn't.

So you're using C++ for speed, which is its only advantage, but you did it
wrong and you aren't even getting the speed. But you are happy because you
think you are. Sigh.

~~~
bff
I feel compelled to disagree with people who insult C++ for the fun of it. In
response to what you said, the STL is optimized and fast. You shouldn't be
using that many smart pointers because allocating memory on the heap is
usually not the best solution. If all you want is perl regex then you're
right, perl would be the better choice.

~~~
jrockway
What I'm saying is that people who are bad at C++ get all of the bad parts
(memory allocation hell) but none of the good parts (supar speeeeeed). Since
most people are bad at programming, it confuses me why they want to use a tool
that makes them look bad when they could trade a little theoretical speed for
a program that actually runs.

Wait, I answered my own question.

------
drinian
Stroustroup's comment on his intended audience seems common among successful
software: _It was done for me and my friends and colleagues._

~~~
jrockway
The "colleagues" part is what ruined it. Stick to pleasing yourself and your
friends.

------
ja27
I would have named it ++C.

~~~
16s
Most people won't get it, but you're right, that would have been more
efficient.

