Fun_People Archive
29 Nov
Twin Peaks vs C++
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 20:54:50 PST
To: Fun_People
Subject: Twin Peaks vs C++
From: mis@seiden.com
From: John Robinson <jr@ksr.com>
From: Tim Peters <tim>
I've spent many an unpleasant hour over the past few days wrestling with
C++ for the first time. We're not afraid to compare! Following is an
extract, from the start of our 3-megabytes-and-growing report:
Twin Peaks C++
---------- ---
category TV show programming language
parent David Lynch Bjarne Stroustrup
can say own name? yes questionable
humor high none
clarity high low
obscurity high over the edge
syntax clean incomprehensible
scoping concentric & everywhere, like vomit
reentrant waves
fun high low
suspense high high
casting inspired same crap as C
in color? yes no
stereo sound? yes no
protected
inheritance? no yes, but nobody really
knows what it means
giants & midgets? yes, but nobody knows no
what it really means
villains? yes yes
heroes? yes no
net group? yes yes
better alternatives? no yes
how many? none all
And so on. Clearly-- and I'm sorry if this upsets you --they're not as
similar as most believe. This Net Creature glimpses part of the ugly
truth:
> It seemed obvious to me that not only did C++ miss the whole point of
> object oriented programming, but in many circumstances it's even worse
> than regular C!
Our advice: Stick to Twin Peaks! If you absolutely have to learn an
object-oriented language so you won't feel out of place at nerd cocktail
parties, learn Python instead. It has exactly one keyword in support of
classes, and the full semantics are explained clearly and precisely in a
few pages of text.
© 1993 Peter Langston