Heartbleed and static analysis

Klaim - Joël Lamotte mjklaim at gmail.com
Sun Apr 13 07:55:23 PDT 2014


On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 12:38 AM, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> C++ is better in theory, but not all that much better than C in
> practice. The design flaws of the language often makes it worse than C
> in terms of maintainability. At my day job, we switched a major project
> from C++ back to C, because the C++ codebase was over-engineered and
> full of abstractions that nobody understood, patched over multiple times
> by people who were reassigned to take the place of the original people
> who left, who didn't understand the original design but had unreasonable
> deadlines to meet, so as a result they just added hacks and workarounds
> to get their job done before they got fired. By the time a few years had
> passed, *nobody* understood what the system even does, and every new
> code change was a "blindly copy-n-paste from other parts of the code and
> pray it won't break something else" deal. It was bloated, slow, and
> riddled with bugs nobody dared to fix, because nobody understood what it
> does. Certain features were dependent on dtor side-effects, and other
> such pathological things, and it was maintenance hell.
>

I don't understand what is the C++ fault when the management of the project
forces people to
write shit. The same situation would have happen with any language and a
full rewrite by a fixed team
would have been better whatever the new language.
I've heard the same story with Java, C# and Python in the last few years.
Always management fault.

I'm not sure I understand the arguments against C++ in your examples, in
particular if you use D which have destructors and "magic" too.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140413/5e96fe5d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list