From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brown Subject: Re: [OT] Re: C++ *for Git* Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:25:27 -0700 Message-ID: <20070923062527.GA8979@old.davidb.org> References: <46F5318A.4030103@krose.org> <877imishdp.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <46F55E03.2040404@krose.org> <5e4707340709221550o6d0a6062qd51c16a278727c29@mail.gmail.com> <20070923020951.GF24423@planck.djpig.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: Alex Unleashed , Kyle Rose , Miles Bader , Dmitry Kakurin , Git To: Frank Lichtenheld X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Sep 23 08:26:08 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 1IZKut-0001tg-3G for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 08:26:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756922AbXIWGZj (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Sep 2007 02:25:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753397AbXIWGZi (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Sep 2007 02:25:38 -0400 Received: from mail.davidb.org ([66.93.32.219]:52416 "EHLO mail.davidb.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757230AbXIWGZi (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Sep 2007 02:25:38 -0400 Received: from davidb by mail.davidb.org with local (Exim 4.67 #1 (Debian)) id 1IZKuF-0002N7-Cc; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:25:27 -0700 Mail-Followup-To: Frank Lichtenheld , Alex Unleashed , Kyle Rose , Miles Bader , Dmitry Kakurin , Git Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070923020951.GF24423@planck.djpig.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 04:09:51AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: >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... I work with plenty of them :-) It's all C. All of the same things happen, with management looking for magic bullets to solve problems caused by bad programmers. Dave