• deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> Dec 20 2011
• "dsimcha" <dsimcha yahoo.com> Dec 20 2011
• deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> Dec 20 2011
• Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> Dec 20 2011
• Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> Dec 20 2011

deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/06/14/why-do-c-folks-make-things-so-complicated/

"dsimcha" <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 20 December 2011 at 15:21:46 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
 http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/06/14/why-do-c-folks-make-things-so-complicated/


Sounds a lot like SafeD vs. non-safe D.

deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

Le 20/12/2011 16:37, dsimcha a écrit :
 On Tuesday, 20 December 2011 at 15:21:46 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
 http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/06/14/why-do-c-folks-make-things-so-complicated/


 Sounds a lot like SafeD vs. non-safe D.


That is what I thought and it is why I posted it here.

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 12/20/2011 04:22 PM, deadalnix wrote:
 http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/06/14/why-do-c-folks-make-things-so-complicated/


Top C++ sounds like SafeD.

Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:

On 20/12/11 3:22 PM, deadalnix wrote:
 http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/06/14/why-do-c-folks-make-things-so-complicated/


I don't think it's that simple when performance and memory usage are a 
concern.

It's easy to have abstractions that compose well when it comes to 
expressiveness, but it is not possible to abstract away the performance 
concerns of your program. Designing for efficiency requires a holistic 
approach that permeates through your whole program, making top/bottom 
separation essentially impossible.