From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank Lichtenheld Subject: Re: [OT] Re: C++ *for Git* Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 04:09:51 +0200 Message-ID: <20070923020951.GF24423@planck.djpig.de> References: <46F5318A.4030103@krose.org> <877imishdp.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <46F55E03.2040404@krose.org> <5e4707340709221550o6d0a6062qd51c16a278727c29@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Kyle Rose , Miles Bader , Dmitry Kakurin , Git To: Alex Unleashed X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Sep 23 04:10:18 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IZGvJ-0007n9-F0 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 04:10:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751658AbXIWCKI (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:10:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751502AbXIWCKI (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:10:08 -0400 Received: from planck.djpig.de ([85.10.192.180]:4443 "EHLO planck.djpig.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751307AbXIWCKG (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:10:06 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by planck.djpig.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660F5880FA; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 04:10:03 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at planck.djpig.de Received: from planck.djpig.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (planck.djpig.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sRU+Rxmrcvct; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 04:09:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: by planck.djpig.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8D6BA88102; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 04:09:51 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5e4707340709221550o6d0a6062qd51c16a278727c29@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 12:50:00AM +0200, Alex Unleashed wrote: > I'd say being forced to be explicit is a good thing here, so that the > programmer at least has some sort of good understanding of what is > going on, and chances are that if he doesn't really know, things just > won't work out (quite unlike a lot of other languages where this > programmer might actually end up with something half-assed that > "mostly" works). > For some reason it seems to me a lot harder to find bad programmers > surviving using C than a lot of the other languages. Idiot-proofness-by-complexity is a myth IMHO. Idiots can be quite persistent... Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld www: http://www.djpig.de/