Quote:
Originally Posted by user_none
Pointers honestly make programming much easier. I always feel constrained and limited when working on a project that isn't C/C++. That said the point is real and good developers don't always understand them because their area of expertise isn't C/C++.
Concepts like pointers and manual memory management require a certain design considerations. These are difficult concepts and it's difficult to do right. If it's not something you employ regularly it becomes a barrier to entry because it's additional things that you need to learn before you can contribute.
|
[rant]
Sad but true. I was introduced to programming with Algol, and structrured programming was drilled into my head, even with assembler language(s). This was back in the late 1960's at Stanford. Don Knuth was a "god". If you do assembler programming, with its indirect addressing, the concept of pointers and dereferecing of pointers is not that big of a deal. But as was said, you gotta keep track of what you're doing. And yes, you can even use structured programming concepts in assembler language.
The point being, I am sadend fromm your remarks, at the implied thought that the concepts of structured programming (which can be implemented even in Fortran or Basic, but are "forced" in Algol, PL/1, Pascal, C, etc.) have fallen by the wayside.
I can't comment about Python, Ruby, etc. but I suspect that structured progamming principles
can apply there too, even though they are not "forced" by the nature of the language. If you can do it in Basic (whch I did), you can do it in any language.
But as for OOP principles: I was never required to grasp them, though I tried to grasp on my own, but gave up for lack of suitible exercises.
I know this thread has veered off topic, but hopefully somebody can glean some insight as to (a) the reasons that Sigil must stay a C++ project (at > a million lines of code) or can be ported / recoded in some other language.
[/rant]