From: jklowden@speakeasy.net
On Fri, 24 May 2013 10:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Thomas Richter wrote:
> > Like you, I live in the land of colossal computing where programs
> > are measured in compute-hours (or days). Unlike you, apparently,
> > my programs also move a lot of data over the wire.
> > The basic questions I have, and I haven't found a convincing
> > answer is:
> *) Why is C++ the right solution for the job?
I have answered that to the best of my ability. When I tell someone
that my compute jobs are measured in CPU-days, and am then asked why
C++ is the right language, I tend to agree with Jamie Zawinski that
maybe tending bar would be more profitable.
> *) Why is using external tools on C++ not a good solution?
First, because it requires two parties to agree on a tool. You seem
seem to start with the assumptions that the programmer begins with a
clean slate and controls all technical choices. Drop those
assumptions, and imposing an external tool becomes infeasible.
My personal hobbyhorse is database client libraries: They are harder
to use than would otherwise need be because the programmer is forced
to define operator<< (or similar) for every data structure
representing a row in the database he wants to use. That work is
boring, error-prone, and pointless. It would not be improved in any
way by introducing CORBA into the mix.
The absence of metadata in the compiled output forces the programmer
to restate the contents of any user-defined structure when the data
pass through a process boundary. To say that work would be
unnecessary if the compiler included the requisite metadata isn't just
obvious; it's tautological.
--jkl
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
