>>116
Most software that deals with database are boring and trivial enterprise software.
hint: almost all software is essentially pretty trivial. SQL is a functional domain-specific programming language that lets you deal with databases in a trivial fashion. A C++ solution that used no other (superior) technology would turn it into a non-trivial application, just like it does everything else. Triviality is more often dependent on accidental complexity and implementation than it is on essential complexity and the real problem. If you think in C++, you probably have no idea what I'm actually talking about.
Wtf? Why sould I believe you. Do you have any proof? Have you tried designing your code better?
I used to be a C++ fanatic. I saw the light. Here's the thing: when you use a C++ style to design code in a language with proper closures, you get an unmanageable mess (actually, this is what most Java programs are,) and vice versa. So those two positions of the grid are obviously bad. The comparison is C++ style in a C++ program vs closure style in a closure language, and it's not even close. I have literally written code before and thought "the C++ way to solve this (ie not to translate what I'm doing but to do it the legit C++ way) would be 10 times as much code." This is NOT bad design. Less code is always fewer bugs, _easier_ to optimize (provided you can go native,) and easier to manage. For instance, it's actually worth using dynamic typing because your code will be that much smaller that you wan't need static analysis to understand what's going on. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true.
GC encourages programmers to code badly without understanding what affects to the performance.
Am I being trolled? It's true that GC lets you forget about a lot of
bullshit that you need to do to write good C++. This is what abstractions are for. Ignoring
detail that is meaningless to the problem domain. Again, it's not really essentially different from the details that C lets you ignore about assembly (which actually includes things like cache coherency. The "1-d plain of memory" abstraction leaks like crazy, performance-wise.)
Wtf? Why sould I believe you. Do you have any proof? Have you tried designing your code better?
Not using shared references when it's easy and guaranteed bug-free is a mindlessly tedious and masochistic restriction. How is this not obvious?
Who says C++ encourages bad design? You?
Lots and lots and lots of people. Try googling it. C++ is probably the most legitimately hated language in existence. Complaints are not by lazy undergraduates, but by people who have used it extensively. A pretty famous example:
http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/ Also, Linus Torvalds disallows it on his projects "just to keep the C++ guys out."