存档

文章标签 ‘history’

垃圾邮件,30岁生日快乐

2008年4月27日 2 条评论

自从1978年5月2日开始,已经三十年了。

我们还在反垃圾邮件。

标签: , ,

It’s not a bug, it’s a feature

2008年1月13日 没有评论

这不是Bug,这是Feature。
SQLiteWMF,和Firefox有感。

It is not a bug, it is a feature From Explodingdog

标签: , ,

From: Linus Torvalds linux-foundation.org>

2007年9月7日 1 条评论

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643/focus=57918


From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds <at> linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Convert builin-mailinfo.c to use The Better String Library.
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.version-control.git
Date: 2007-09-06 17:50:28 GMT
(19 hours and 46 minutes ago)
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Dmitry Kakurin wrote:
>
> When I first looked at Git source code two things struck me as odd:
> 1. Pure C as opposed to C++. No idea why. Please don’t talk about portability,
> it’s BS.

*YOU* are full of bullshit.

C++ is a horrible language. It’s made more horrible by the fact that a lot
of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it’s much much
easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if
the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out,
that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.

In other words: the choice of C is the only sane choice. I know Miles
Bader jokingly said "to piss you off", but it’s actually true. I’ve come
to the conclusion that any programmer that would prefer the project to be
in C++ over C is likely a programmer that I really *would* prefer to piss
off, so that he doesn’t come and screw up any project I’m involved with.

C++ leads to really really bad design choices. You invariably start using
the "nice" library features of the language like STL and Boost and other
total and utter crap, that may "help" you program, but causes:

– infinite amounts of pain when they don’t work (and anybody who tells me
that STL and especially Boost are stable and portable is just so full
of BS that it’s not even funny)

– inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road
you notice that some abstraction wasn’t very efficient, but now all
your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you
cannot fix it without rewriting your app.

In other words, the only way to do good, efficient, and system-level and
portable C++ ends up to limit yourself to all the things that are
basically available in C. And limiting your project to C means that people
don’t screw that up, and also means that you get a lot of programmers that
do actually understand low-level issues and don’t screw things up with any
idiotic "object model" crap.

So I’m sorry, but for something like git, where efficiency was a primary
objective, the "advantages" of C++ is just a huge mistake. The fact that
we also piss off people who cannot see that is just a big additional
advantage.

If you want a VCS that is written in C++, go play with Monotone. Really.
They use a "real database". They use "nice object-oriented libraries".
They use "nice C++ abstractions". And quite frankly, as a result of all
these design decisions that sound so appealing to some CS people, the end
result is a horrible and unmaintainable mess.

But I’m sure you’d like it more than git.

Linus

Very interesting, also boring...

人和人是不一样的,如果不喜欢某项东西又无法改变,至少你有用脚投票的权利。
或者,你有用手投票的权利,如果C++更好,就用C++做出来一个比Git更加成功的东西,
怎么都比这种无意义的争吵要好。

其实,newsmth上面的坑比这个还有意思。适合茶余饭后消遣一下。
标签: ,