to be honest i don't really care if i'm banned or not, i'm just wondering what makes you think that i'm "unreasonably hostile"
i insulted your administration like 6 months ago because i believed that a blhack user, known moron and user of client_troll (aka metario) was an administrator on there. if you have a problem with me saying that then wow
the other things that i have said about the administration are 2 years ago, which i doubt are even worth considering for any ban
this is the other thing that i have said about you recently, and yes it is an insult, but i wouldn't ban anyone who says that stuff about me on my server, and i definitely wouldn't classify it as "unreasonably hostile"
as i said at the top i don't care about being banned so don't bother unbanning me, i just want to know why you think i'm some sort of satanic being and a plague on your servers
Well, you have a habit for being rude sometimes, you know, insulting his whole administration staff for one problem admin. For instance, on the DESPAIR SYNDROME server, you told me that I didn't know what I was talking about when I pointed out that C++ is simply a modern variation of C with a larger library and higher editability, but you said that it was useless because it requires pages and pages of code. So, Let's go into a bit of education. I agree that there are a few reasons to prefer C, the main point being that it tends to be more difficult to produce truly tiny executables with C++. For really small systems, you'll only write a ton of code once in a blue blockhead because the extra ROM space that would be needed for C++ rather than C can be significant and sometimes costly for mass production.
I must assert the divide, however. For truly miniscule and compact systems, C has problems for exactly the same reason, and assembly language is nearly the only reasonable choice. The range of system sizes within which C really makes sense is quite small, and shrinking constantly (though I'll admit, fairly slowly).
Although another time/reason to use C is to provide a set of functions that you can bind to from essentially any other language, you can also write these functions in C++ by defining them as extern "C" functions, but doing so restricts those functions to presenting an essentially C-life "face" to the world -- classes, overloaded functions, templates, and member functions, etc., need not apply. This doesn't necessarily restrict development to C though -- it's perfectly reasonable to use any and all manner of C++ features internally, as long as the external interface looks like C.
At the same time, for larger systems like the ones we're using, reasonably written C++ will generally be at least as fast as C, and often at least a little faster. Readability is generally much better, if only because you don't get buried in an avalanche of all the code for even the most trivial algorithms and data structures, all the error handling, etc.
Something interesting to add is that templates don't fix a problem with the language's type system, they simply add a number of fundamental capabilities almost completely absent from C and/or C++ without templates. One of the original intents was to provide for type-safe containers, but in reality they go far beyond that -- essentially none of which C provides at all.
Automated tools are mostly a red herring as well -- while it's true that writing a C parser is less work than writing a C++ parser, the reality is that it makes virtually no difference in the end. Very few people are willing or able to write a usable parser for either one. As such, the reasonable starting point is Clang either way.
As it happens, C and C++ are fairly frequently used
together on the
same projects, maintained by the
same people. This allows something that's otherwise quite rare: a study that directly, objectively compares the maintainability of code written in the two languages by people who are equally competent overall (i.e., the exact same people). At least in the study, one conclusion was clear and unambiguous: "We found that using C++ instead of C results in improved software quality and reduced maintenance effort..."
Link to the PDF:
http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~neamtiu/pubs/icse11bhattacharya.pdfHere are located some of the in-code differences as well:
http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/c-vs-c++.htmlI believe you voiced your opinion about C++ because you didn't particularly know how to use it correctly, so you defended the stance that C and C++ are both completely different when C and C++ should be used together. So if you're going to maneuver around something as basic and as trivial as that (on top of subtly rallying up the confidence of the other aspiring programmers to your opinion because you happen to be an admin/sadmin there) instead of just saying that you prefer C because of initial simplicity, then I doubt your actual criticizm was as gentle as either you or Tenuzi would like to put it in order to save face, and I think he's correct in saying that you've been critical many times instead of the few that you claim to have made.
You should have approached the situation differently altogether instead of using one problem user as an excuse to insult his entire staff, which is what we gain from what you said -- water erodes iron constantly, just like your reputation erodes the line between safety and banishment. It should come of no suprise that, when you apllied that gentle tap of a remark, (including other things we don't know) that iron bridge came crashing down, sending you to the forums to stir up more controversialism against him. I think he already had enough to deal with back in 2009.
