aminer
6/9/2014 1:15:00 PM
Hello,
I have wrote:
>I will resume it like this:
>On the criterias of "complexity" and "difficulty", the C and C++
>programming languages are more complex and difficult than Object
>Pascal for example, so since they are more complex and difficult they
>are likely to create something like a darwinian filter who don't let
>the weaker humans among us humans to cross or to climb the social
>ladder, this is why i think that C and C++ do participate to social
>darwinism, this is why i say that C and C++ are bad.
Joseph Mitzen repsonded:
>Something may be more complex or more difficult to learn but it may
>bring more capabilities. For instance, a helicopter is both
>mechanically more complex and more difficult to learn to fly than an
>airplane. However, helicopters possess vertical takeoff and landing
>which allow it to reach places planes can not and also gives it
>special abilities, such as hovering.
>Two important measurements then are the value (what one gains for the
>complexity) and what one needs to do (is language X enough for the
>task, will feature Y be used, etc.).
>Otherwise, one could simply say "Delphi is more complex and difficult
>than Ruby or Python, therefore Delphi is bad." It's not only
>simplistic, it's also meaningless (bad at what?).
I understand your example of hellicopter, you are saying that C and C++
can bring "quality", i understand that, but what you have not understand
is that i was trying to explain that since C and C++ are difficult and
complex they hurt the weaker humans among us that finds C and C++ too
difficult and too complex, so C and C++ will likely create something
like a darwinian filter who don't let the weaker humans among us humans
to cross or to climb the social ladder, and we call that social
darwinism, so the complexity and difficulty of C and C++ language do
participate to social darwinism, and this is bad i think.
Hope you have understood.
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.