I am in favor of choice in all features. If one is doing rapid development or prototyping, those features can be immensely useful. So long as these features are not mandatory I am in favor of them. Since I have said this many times and you still can't seem to grasp it: I am in favor of optional features.
Sounds like either you did something wrong here or you ran into a compiler bug. If assigning the memory address of a child to a parent is legal, and downcasting changes the value of the memory address of the child, you would wreak havoc on your data. Way to go, blaming somebody else's irresponsibility on language designers.
You obviously didn't know that the above wasn't the language's fault, you didn't know that you could catch exceptions at runtime inside of operators, you didn't know that operators could be debugged just like normal functions... I'd say you have a pretty poor understanding of these features of C++ that you've used -- supposing that you've used the features that you're arguing about.
Exactly. Because the project manager understands that changing the style of the entire codebase is a large undertaking (without a beautifier, of course), and he knows that individual coders should not go gung-ho on styles because that leads to inconsistency.
And the language designers are not responsible for your organization's negligance.
Yes, I just knew that the C++ language designers should have guarunteed the privacy of data once undefined operations have occurred. Anybody that has access to the memory behind your class can change it; a language can never guaruntee such a thing without total control of the OS. If you expect the integrity of your class (which private members are supposed to help protect, but cannot protect absolutely) to be maintained when you've done something as brain damaged as the above code fragment, you're living in a dream world.
More like destroyed by idiocy... Give me any language with "strong typing" and I'll destroy its integrity by modifying its memory. You've set unreasonable standards for strong typing that no language can live up to.
"nobody works in both ceramic and glass" is not the same thing as "working in ceramics restricts your working with glass". Take a course or two in logic and call me in the morning.
There are millions of people that speak more than one language fluently. Just because angelbob came in and said that this was too difficult to comprehend doesn't stop them from using whichever subsets of that language they feel would best express their thoughts. The real shocker is that these people can still communicate pretty effectively with people that only speak one of the languages they know; obviously they wouldn't be able to communicate if they expressed their thoughts in the language that their target did not know. It is up to the speaker and the speakee to negotiate this -- not you.
So we should all use VB. C sucks because it's got language features that are hard to understand (pointers! strings as arrays!). Glad that's settled now.
|