C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

[Campy Happer]

Hello all,

I would like to bring to your attention a concept
and a term for it that I think is long overdue.

But first: In the bad old days of programming,
before subroutines were even available,
people used to write "spaghetti code", which
was an unreadable, unmaintainable mess of
"goto" statements.

With the increased availability of more
languages such as Pascal and C, and the
focus in programming courses on the importance
of modularity and abstract data types,
one might have thought that the days of
commonplace incomprehensibl e code were over,
or at least that the worst case scenario
in average code was improved.

In the case of C++, this is not so.
C++, with its multiple inheritance,
templates, and vastly bloated class libraries
such as STL and Boost, which permit and
seem even to require illegible coding practices
in which 5-deep derived classes are not
unlikely, has led to the C++ equivalent
of spaghetti code.

But how to describe it? Commonly people
simply call it "bad coding practices" but this
is too general. It's like calling a traffic accident
"bad driving practices". What then is the
term for an "accident" in C++? To describe this
build-up of tangled incomprehensibl e bloat,
I shall propose a new term:
C++ plaque.

It is similar to the plaque build-up in
Alzheimer's insofar as it impairs memory,
makes the programmer confused about
what is located where and what day it is.
In addition, when C++ plaque accumulates,
it decreases the programmer's ability
to function in his/her daily work life, ergo
anything (s)he produces will be much more
likely to crash, e.g. KDE.

Fight code pollution by not polluting.

C++ plaque: The cure is within you.

Thank you for your attention.

[Keith Thompson]

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

Campy Happer <campyhapper@ya hoo.comwrites:

Hello all,
>
I would like to bring to your attention a concept
and a term for it that I think is long overdue.

[snip]

I would like to bring to your attention the fact that C and C++ are
two different languages. This may be appropriate in comp.lang.c++;
it's not appropriate in comp.lang.c or gnu.misc.discus s. Please
restrict any followups to comp.lang.c++. (I doubt that this will do
any good, but it's worth a try.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Juha Nieminen]

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

Campy Happer wrote:

In the case of C++, this is not so.
C++, with its multiple inheritance,
templates, and vastly bloated class libraries
such as STL and Boost, which permit and
seem even to require illegible coding practices
in which 5-deep derived classes are not
unlikely, has led to the C++ equivalent
of spaghetti code.

Go troll somewhere else, Linus Torvalds.

[Lionel B]

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:03:29 -0700, Campy Happer wrote:

<some nonsense>

Can we phuleeeze not feed the troll.

<plonk>

--
Lionel B

[Roberto Waltman]

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

Campy Happer <campyhapper@ya hoo.comwrote:
.... In the bad old days of programming,

>before subroutines were even available,
>people used to write "spaghetti code", which
>was an unreadable, unmaintainable mess of
>"goto" statements.
>...
>C++, with its multiple inheritance,
>templates, and vastly bloated class libraries
>such as STL and Boost, which permit and
>seem even to require illegible coding practices
>in which 5-deep derived classes are not
>unlikely, has led to the C++ equivalent
>of spaghetti code.
>
>But how to describe it?

In the one and only true way. The object-oriented version of
"Spaghetti code" is, of course, "Lasagna code". (Too many layers.)

I have used that expression for years, but so far failed to obtain ISO
certification for it, or have it included in Webster's dictionary...

It goes without saying that any good chef can cook both Spaghetti and
Lasagna codes in either C or C++. (If using the later I would
recommend inheriting from the Pasta abstract base class.)
--
Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
return address is invalid ]

[Gernot Frisch]

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

Can we phuleeeze not feed the troll.

Imagine a troll post and no responses for a week. I think he's gonna
explode.

[s0suk3@gmail.com]

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

On Jul 15, 10:24 am, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks. invalidwrote:

Campy Happer wrote:

In the case of C++, this is not so.
C++, with its multiple inheritance,
templates, and vastly bloated class libraries
such as STL and Boost, which permit and
seem even to require illegible coding practices
in which 5-deep derived classes are not
unlikely, has led to the C++ equivalent
of spaghetti code.

>
Go troll somewhere else, Linus Torvalds.

Does Linus Torvalds not like C++?

[fnegroni]

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

On Jul 17, 7:22 am, s0s...@gmail.co m wrote:

On Jul 15, 10:24 am, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks. invalidwrote:
>

Campy Happer wrote:

In the case of C++, this is not so.
C++, with its multiple inheritance,
templates, and vastly bloated class libraries
such as STL and Boost, which permit and
seem even to require illegible coding practices
in which 5-deep derived classes are not
unlikely, has led to the C++ equivalent
of spaghetti code.

>

  Go troll somewhere else, Linus Torvalds.

>
Does Linus Torvalds not like C++?

No, he does not :-)

[John Bode]

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

On Jul 15, 11:16 am, gaze...@xmissio n.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:

In article <3ce476c4-3248-4a00-aaf1-a670c07b3...@l4 2g2000hsc.googl egroups.com>,
Campy Happer <campyhap...@ya hoo.comwrote:
...
>

I shall propose a new term:

>

C++ plaque.

>

[snip]

1) I always associated plaque with dental problems, not
Alzheimer's. Is the Alzheimer's reference about the same as
the dental one?

Sort of. It refers to the buildup of amyloid plaques (sheets of
protein, IIUC) in the brain tissue of Alzheimer's sufferers. I think
this is closer to the meaning the OP is going for.

[Malcolm McLean]

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

"John Bode" <jfbode1029@gma il.comwrote in message

>
Sort of. It refers to the buildup of amyloid plaques (sheets of
protein, IIUC) in the brain tissue of Alzheimer's sufferers. I think
this is closer to the meaning the OP is going for.
>

If you are interested in computer models of amyloid, see my website. It's
the major focus of my work.

--
Free games and programming goodies.

http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[Wolfgang Draxinger]

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

fnegroni wrote:

>Does Linus Torvalds not like C++?

>
No, he does not :-)

Well, I know only the comments Linus Torvalds made about the
implications of using C++ to develop a kernel. And I totally
agree with him in his statements. Programming a kernel you want
to control every bit of the program (yes I know, that this
sentence can be interpreted in many ways, and each way totaly
matches what I mean).

A languages like C++, that hides (some) vital aspects of the
underlying mechanisms can break things at such a low level
application. I'm thinking mainly about the way, polymorphism is
implemented (there's no standard about that in current C++), how
name mangling is performed (dito), calling conventions if
objects are passed by reference (dito). Another problem is, that
the use of some C++ features (I'm looking at templates here)
will start a chain reaction in which code is created generically
w/o having any influence on the exact outcome. This is not the
same like using macros to create a similair effect; doing it
with a macro one must exactly know what's going on.

IMHO C++ was once a fine language, but it took some problematic
turns. The existence of tools like "moc" of Qt, a own, not fully
standardized interface description language (IDL) to be
translated in a set of abstract interface classes and from those
derived implementation classes, not to forget gccxml to give the
guy who want's some too to process C++ without getting into a
lof of trouble are symptoms for this. I dunno, but I got a row
of programming language books in my shelf and "The C++
programming language" by Stroustroup is easly the thickest. It
even beats "Modern Compiler Design" and goes equal with Volume 2
and 3 of "The Art of Computer Programming".

Wolfgang Draxinger
--
E-Mail address works, Jabber: hexarith@jabber .org, ICQ: 134682867

[James Kanze]

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

On Jul 18, 1:31 am, Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxin...@dar kstargames.de>
wrote:

fnegroni wrote:

Does Linus Torvalds not like C++?

No, he does not :-)

Well, I know only the comments Linus Torvalds made about the
implications of using C++ to develop a kernel. And I totally
agree with him in his statements. Programming a kernel you want
to control every bit of the program (yes I know, that this
sentence can be interpreted in many ways, and each way totaly
matches what I mean).

C++ only hides what you want it to hide. The old Chorus OS was
written entirely in C++, and presumably, significant parts of it
have migrated into the current versions of Solaris, which would
mean that significant parts of Solaris are written in C++.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kan ze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

[James Kanze]

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

On Jul 18, 9:27 am, Michael DOUBEZ <michael.dou... @free.frwrote:

Wolfgang Draxinger a écrit :

fnegroni wrote:

Polymorphism is only one aspect and one you can easily avoid
especially for something as simple as a driver.

Actually, drivers are, by their very nature, polymorphic, and if
you don't use an abstract base class and derive from it, you
have to implement by hand what the compiler does.

[...]

IMHO C++ was once a fine language, but it took some problematic
turns.

When was it, before the standard (CFront) ?

Back in the good ole days (which, of course, weren't so good
when we were actually living them).

For the rest, of course, there are places in an OS kernel where
you would want to restrict the use of certain C++ features---an
exception which tries to propagate back through your context
switch routine isn't likely to work very well. But off hand,
exceptions are about the only C++ feature I see which would
cause problems (and then only in specific contexts---which
represent less than 10% of the OS). And C++ gives you a lot
more safety than C, even when used as a "better C". I can see a
lot of OS's sticking with C because that's what they were
originally written in, and they're not undergoing active enough
evolution to warrent porting to C++, but other than that, it
would be foolish and irresponsible not to take advantages of the
extra safety C++ provides.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kan ze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

[Juha Nieminen]

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:

fnegroni wrote:
>

>>Does Linus Torvalds not like C++?

>No, he does not :-)

>
Well, I know only the comments Linus Torvalds made about the
implications of using C++ to develop a kernel. And I totally
agree with him in his statements.

His statements are not limited to the Linux kernel, and they are
completely irrational at times. For example, he states that C++ leads to
bad programming practices because of all the "high level stuff" (such as
abstraction, data hiding, etc), while C leads to good programming
practices precisely because it's so low-level. He also states that
programming in the C++ way leads to inefficient code, while programming
in C leads automatically to efficient code. Anyone who even considers
using things like std::string don't understand anything about efficiency
and low-level issues.

I have actually written an open letter to him about a really shameful
flamewar he participated in, regarding this subject.

http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseToTorvalds.html

[Tim Smith]

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

In article <4c15l5-fk5.ln1@darksta rgames.dnsalias .net>,
Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxinger@dar kstargames.dewr ote:

Well, I know only the comments Linus Torvalds made about the
implications of using C++ to develop a kernel. And I totally
agree with him in his statements. Programming a kernel you want
to control every bit of the program (yes I know, that this
sentence can be interpreted in many ways, and each way totaly
matches what I mean).
>
A languages like C++, that hides (some) vital aspects of the
underlying mechanisms can break things at such a low level
application. I'm thinking mainly about the way, polymorphism is
implemented (there's no standard about that in current C++), how
name mangling is performed (dito), calling conventions if
objects are passed by reference (dito). Another problem is, that
the use of some C++ features (I'm looking at templates here)
will start a chain reaction in which code is created generically
w/o having any influence on the exact outcome. This is not the
same like using macros to create a similair effect; doing it
with a macro one must exactly know what's going on.

I have yet to encounter a C++ compiler that will refuse to compile a
program if it does not use polymorphism, passing objects by reference,
and templates. There is nothing forcing someone who writes a kernel in
C++ to do those (possibly) questionable things.

--
--Tim Smith