>>78
Yes. Because it's C++. This indeed souded brief, but it is by no means faint. I don't get why some people see explicit, concise criticism as inherent hate for a language.
Having things done in C++, or anything for that sake, does not mean it's well designed, or appropriate for your particular purpose. Even if the said things fits in your purpose. "Working" could also mean "working really bad, but working", a very common occurrence specially in the field of technology.
I'll elaborate a little bit. Techonological misuse and overscaling is paramount in modern industry research and propaganda, for a variety of factors. A given technological resource is overused for many more things than was intended on its sole purpose, most generally resulting in incompatibilities, performance problems and a cesspool of kludges. The Web itself is an extreme aberration of such intention: grossly mutated versions of antique protocols, hastily adapted to handle the needs of a 30-year-old-ahead civilization. There's neither time, nor intelect, nor interest in really
designing new things in technology or Web, because it has become mostly a battleground of political and marketing interests. For what use rebuilding when repackaging bad solutions still yield sales at breakingly low costs? Old technologies are warped and mutilated horribly to fit as solutions for new problems, diminishing immediate costs for developing appropriate solutions and, at the same time, producing an entirely new selling branch for the companies.
That being said, C++ is the overall summation of such a mentality, incorporated into a single language which, haven't it received the tremendous amount of investment from companies, wouldn't have even barefooted the development frontline. C++ has 'everything' in it, which is not exactly 'good' as most people would readily assume. It hasn't really been designed, it has rather grown incontrollably. It has been deformed to fit in about every single thinkable purpose, and that's what seduces people on thinking it is pretty much adequate for everything. This is what's been advertised, and a lot of money would have been wasted if people didn't think so, if people didn't buy C++ compilers, attended C++ conferences, hired C++ consultants. No one would say that explicitly, but the fact is that C++
intends to be the Final Solution. (As we know, Final Solutions culminate in Holocausts.)
C++ is a gross error dressed as a tremendously successful, top-notch and advanced technological achievement. It's a junk bond sold as hi-quality treasuries from brokers worldwide.
Lastly, could one argue Brainfuck is a good language for scientific computing just because there are a couple of programs which calculate pi, or JavaScript is adequate for virtual-machine development because there's a x86 emulator written in it? These facts are really irrelevant to the proposed question beforehand. Mixing such feelings hinders the ability of reaching the answer to the core question.
There have been kernels in a whole lot of languages. I know a lot of C++, every intrincacy of the language and the enviroment, and believe me: the C++ language has a lot of interesting features; however, they sink miserably in an ocean of fundamental flaws, and -- what is really hateful -- floats in a cloud of miserable lies by a lot of people with money and disposition to make it sell.
But don't just take my word out of it: stick to your development. I agree with your former statement:
doing is the best way of reaching enlightment. Just don't frustrate yourself if the language overwhelms you: it's, indeed, hormonated and
overwhelming. However, if you stick with the very basics, C++
can even look like C with a couple of addons. (Unfortunately, they're not at all compatible...)