C++ Should Be The Only Programming Language

C++, a programming language invented by Lucent's Bjarney Strupstrup in 1995, has been hailed as a God-send to Computer Science since its creation. Based on Richie Kerninghan's language "C+", C++ brought several previously-theoretical programming languages features to the mainstream:

----------
Church-Rosser Compliance
Known as "multiple inheritance" in the programming world and as "being Church-Rosser" in academia, C++'s compliance to this IEEE standard immediately placed it head-and-shoulders above other languages. "Churrossity" allows programmers to use blocks of code, called "objects," in place of other blocks of code ("arrays".) The layman can think of this as "allowing 'new' code to 'run' old code." This advance has not been possible in previous logic-based languages such as Ada.

Multi-Byte Characters
C++ allowed use of "Beaster," a subset of Microsoft's COM ("Common Object Model") windowing layer. The Beaster system allows non-English-speakers such as the Welsh to use computing technology, as it could redirect the signals used to display non-English characters on a computer's monitor screen or laser printer. It is also useful in helping the blind, who speak a specialized subset of English called "ALS."

Pass-By-Text
A non-recursive pass-by-text mechanism existed in Kerninghan's C+, called "macro facility." But Strupstrup did Kerninghan one better with the "String Template Loader" variable passing mechanism, which allowed text to be passed to procedures at run-time. This sped up code execution times, as code could be compiled while the user was running the program. This eliminated speed loss caused by incompatibility from obselete computer chips (Motorola and ADM.)
----------

The superiority of C++ over other languages should be obvious. But is switching to it from other languages possible in your corporation? Astute observers will note that the eco-terrorist group FSF produces a C++ compiler called "DJGPP." Under President Bush's War on Terror, any organization supporting a terrorist organization is recursively itself a terrorist organization.

Corporations needn't worry. Microsoft has its own C++ offering, "Visual Studio." As an added bonus, Microsoft Visual Studio is highly standards compliant. It features a visual programming interface, and several features not found elsewhere (such as a visual debugger and an AOL instant messanger client called "Windows Messaging".)

But these advantages can only be realized if code written in inferior languages can be kept from polluting the inter-web eco-space. When compilers for other languages are available, low-level managers are tempted to write code in them. Why? Often times, managers are brought up from the ranks of Software Engineers, and thus lack an Executive's sense for using the right tool for the job. When these managers write code in a jungled zoo of languages, code in one program is unable to interact with code from another program (churrossity.) Only by standardizing on C++ can all programs run together smoothly. Using C++ to eliminate software errors will jump-start the sagging technology industry. This will boost our economy as a whole, which in turn will help us to win the War on Terror.

The effort to legally mandate this has been going on for a while. But it needs your help. Even the smallest person, such as a reader of this site, can make a difference with his Congressman. Congressmen are kept highly versed in technical issues by lobbyists from Microsoft and Intel. But without strong grassroots input, the men of Congress and the Senate are powerless to heed the corporations' pleas.

Please, I urge you to visit Congress.com and Whitehouse.com to help bring this important movement to its fruition.

	GO HOME YOSHI. (3.00 / 2) (#1)
	by because it isnt on Fri Jul 5th, 2002 at 01:20:10 AM PST

	Hey Yoshi, here's your dead horse back, thanks for len... oh, it's you. Sorry for the confusion. Actually, I support your proposal, because it means Microsoft's C# and Visual Basic languages would be illegal. Go for it, Yoshi. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	no kidding (none / 0) (#9)
	by detikon on Sat Jul 6th, 2002 at 09:32:56 PM PST

	Let's not forget Microsoft's brand new J# which is supposed to more easily help developers migrate from JUava to C#. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	whoops (none / 0) (#10)
	by detikon on Sat Jul 6th, 2002 at 09:56:39 PM PST

	That was supposed to read JAVA not JUava. Also if you visit the MSDN Library, Microsoft maintains many documents which outline the pros and cons of C++. Then he go into all this crap about interacting and working together. Then there's stuff about executive sense. Amazingly he doesn't know that any executive worth a shit knows that a single solution doesn't work for everyone. Obviously this was written by someone just wanting attantion. While it may very well be Yoshi, I tend to think it's elenchos. The same ignorrance found in his ban programming article makes me think it's his handiwork. Anyone with any sense can tell you that simply switching to a single language won't solve all the problems mentioned. Solid code and good practices like peer review and beta testing. And when I say beta testing I'm not talk about the "here's WindowsXP Release 1 for the general public to give us an opinion on whether or not they think the new GUI is pretty". Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	The question has to be why (5.00 / 1) (#4)
	by PotatoError on Sat Jul 6th, 2002 at 06:21:11 PM PST

	Shy oh why. What kind of person do you have to be to spend so much time typing this sort of drivel? Why you all looking at me for? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Why we're all looking at you. (none / 0) (#6)
	by because it isnt on Sat Jul 6th, 2002 at 06:31:52 PM PST

	Because you know the answer, little SpudMistake, that's why. Come on, tell us already!!!! Stop looking so innocent, mister?!?!?!!!1! adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	This is ridiculous. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 6th, 2002 at 06:42:18 PM PST

	I tried writing a program using C++ and it didn't even do anything. When I write programs in Visual Basic (The Pro Version) they almost always work pretty well. Obviously, C++ has some serious problems. Besides that I can easily get lots of sample programs that I can modify to suit my needs. I saved my company thousands of dollars by making some simple changes to some sample programs to make a program to track the employees I manage time and attendance and print out weekly reports. I did this in only a couple of days of work. Who knows how long that would take with some obscure programming language like C++? Probably 6 to 8 months, I would guess.

	You are ridiculous! (5.00 / 2) (#18)
	by MessiahWWKD on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 03:12:47 PM PST

	Your incompetence in C++ does not mean that C++ itself is an inferior language. It simply means that you are an idiot. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Retard Ahoy! (none / 0) (#22)
	by HatBot on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 09:16:58 PM PST

	Yes, the fact that you cannot write a proper application in C++ doesn't mean it is defunct, it means you are stupid. C++, although harder to understand than VB is far smoother and more efficient on system resources. Also, there is no "Pro Version" of VB...the language is the same no matter what, you are just refering to your compiler version, also the fact that you just edit sample programs, or steal other peoples work, shows you have no clue what the hell you are talking about, you don't know anything about programming, and have no business making posts with opinions that have no value in the first place.

	The guy has every right to complain (none / 0) (#46)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 03:00:36 PM PST

	As a long time C++ programmer, I've enjoyed exploiting many of the features to thier limits so my solutions could have the best of both worlds, but I understand at the same time that not everybody should have to work with such an advanced tool to solve simple problems. His concerns and complains are legitimate. With an expanding need for programmers we need more languages like Java, C#, VB.Net that bridge the gap between a flexible systems language and an application development language. How can I take this idea serious when strings (A very fundamental element of ANY programming language) aren't even standardized?

	What's wrong with std::string? (none / 0) (#49)
	by Amitabh Bachan on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 01:22:11 AM PST

	n/t

	I understand now (none / 0) (#8)
	by Screamin Monkey Bandit on Sat Jul 6th, 2002 at 08:48:37 PM PST

	I now understand how to get a story approved for the front page... if you can manage to combine references to Microsoft and AOL, misused phrases in quotations, obscure logic, and the word "eco-terrorist" into one article, then it's a veritable lock for posting, I guess. However, the strange lack of self-referential links, or links of any kind for that matter, is disconcerting... only one half-assed attempt at humorous misdirection at the very end? It's like it was only an afterthought...

	heres a few (none / 0) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 04:08:26 PM PST

	Basic (lol I know) C+ (I found it easyer then C++, Just my opinion.) I am not sure of anything else I only tryed them two and C++, a few of my friends liked Peral, but I think its overrated.

	Oh dear (none / 0) (#26)
	by Amitabh Bachan on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 02:31:58 AM PST

	Basic - capitalisation easyer - spelling tryed them two - spelling and grammar Peral - spelling I think its overrated - lack of clue when it comes to apostrophes It would appear that you find the English language difficult too. Please stick to your BASIC in the future and don't trouble the rest of us with your illiterate nonsense.

	Duh! (5.00 / 1) (#27)
	by because it isnt on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 02:39:59 AM PST

	Peral - spelling Of course! The correct mis-spelling of perl is "Pearl"! I'm a linguist, kids, trust me when I mis-spell everything! adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	UH mandatory no... (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 6th, 2002 at 11:55:10 PM PST

	C++ is great and all but its a harder language to learn. Of course we don't want anything to be easy for anyone since that would make sense...

	wait a second now (none / 0) (#12)
	by detikon on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 12:01:12 AM PST

	Your argument makes some sense. Sure in this time when people are so scared of violated licenses (just shows the cut and paste mentality of even large corporations) it could be considered difficult. There are easier languages to learn. All in all your argument would make more since if you listed what languages C++ was more difficult to learn than. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Troll Alert! (none / 0) (#21)
	by MessiahWWKD on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 08:45:32 PM PST

	There's no such thing as C+ in programming. Please, stay out of discussions that are above your intellect. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	An informative (none / 0) (#13)
	by Amitabh Bachan on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 04:01:37 AM PST

	story from eSolutions. He is especially perceptive when it comes to 'beasters'. Old languages including C+ used simple arwys of letters to make strings. The 'beaster' however features numerous levels of misdirection before you can find the underlying string data thus neatly fitting in with the whole C++ philosophy.

	But C++ is crap for many jobs. (none / 0) (#15)
	by gordonjcp on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 05:10:04 AM PST

	If you wrote everything in C++, you'd need a 1.4GHz processor and 512M of memory just to implement a washing machine controller. Assembly Language should be the only programming language.

	Washing Machine Controller (5.00 / 1) (#20)
	by flowers on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 07:47:55 PM PST

	Yes, but think about it. This would result in two separate but equally important benefits: Since C++ is the best programming language there is, washing machine controllers would benefit from huge performance and functionality improvements. This is important, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you about all the recent deaths attributed to washing machine controller malfunction. If public confidence in washing machine controllers increased, this would give a much-needed boost to the flagging washing machine controller industry. Since C++ introduced the new `__controlwashingmachine` keyword, writing advanced washing machine controller software would become much easier. This would mean a threefold increase in washing machine production, since as you know writing the controller is currently a huge bottleneck. More washing machines means cheaper washing machines, and cheaper washing machines mean even children and the elderly can appear in public with clean clothes. The only real obstacle to standardizing on C++, as I see it, is the competing language Apple Logo, which was specifically engineered to control washing machines. It's difficult to predict which language those Washington fatcats will choose. --- I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

	But... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
	by gordonjcp on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 01:11:58 AM PST

	Washing machines would have to become almost twice the size, to contain the heatsink for the CPU. Not only that, they'd need about an 80Gb hard disk, which would require a large, bulky shock mount. Otherwise, when it went into spin cycle, the vibration would cause a head crash.<p> If you used a small, low-power CPU, you could make a small washing machine, capable of being run off batteries, or a car cigar lighter extension lead, or something. This washing machine would be smaller and easier to carry than the conventional machines we're all used to, so you could wash your clothes wherever you go. Just imagine, being able to have clean clothes while on the move, without carrying huge bags of clothes. Think for a moment - which is more efficient? Carrying a great big bag of clean clothes, and a bag to carry them when they get dirty so they don't get mixed up? Or carrying only two or three changes of clothes and a personal washing machine?

	You make an excellent point... (none / 0) (#37)
	by flowers on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 09:00:05 PM PST

	However, what I think you fail to account for is the fact that hard drives will soon be made obsolete by some kind of solid state persistent secondary storage mechanism -- perhaps Cheetos-related -- that will make the shock mount unnecessary. No moving parts = no head crash. The heat sink issue is more problematic, but I believe technology can save us there as well. If the CPU were engineered to use cold electrons -- the kind of electrons that are generated by cold fusion and, in lesser concentrations, other naturally occurring phenomenon, the amount of heat generated would be minimal. I believe the United States Army Corp of Engineers is conducting trials with cold electrons for the purposes of sabotage. If an unfriendly nation's (read: Canada's) electrical grid were contaminated with cold electrons, temperatures in electricity using homes would plummet, and electric blankets would only exacerbate the problem. This would prevent their military from wanting to leave home. If these trials are successful, it will certainly prove that cold electrons are adequate to the task of obviating the need for a massive heat sink on a washing machine controller's CPU. As for the personal washing machine, I don't think it will ever catch on. If we didn't have to go to laundromats to do our laundry, how would we ever get laid? It takes three generations to prepare for a change of that magnitude, and our species would be extinctified after only one. --- I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

	Low tech solution required (5.00 / 1) (#38)
	by walwyn on Tue Jul 9th, 2002 at 06:52:52 AM PST

	You don't need heat sinks or cold electrons when the excess energy can be used to warm up the water.

	Oh, yeah. (none / 0) (#40)
	by flowers on Tue Jul 9th, 2002 at 11:06:09 AM PST

	This is why I don't design washing machine controllers. --- I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

	Laundromats uncommon in the UK and Europe (none / 0) (#39)
	by gordonjcp on Tue Jul 9th, 2002 at 09:02:00 AM PST

	Most people have washing machines at home, even in very small flats or apartments. It's really unusual to rent a place that doesn't have a washing machine, and the absence of such common household appliances is good for getting about fifty quid a month of your rent. Dishwashers aren't that popular though. Odd, eh?

	Ahhh... (none / 0) (#47)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 10:18:28 PM PST

	Right.. Assembly is good for mass-number crunching, ya? Good as objects. But honestly, are you going to sit there and write a GUI in asm? Are you going to sit there and write your program for every processor it's intended to run on? Assembly is good for making little objects, massively-called functions and things that require doing the same thing to a large range of stuff (eg: drawing to the screen), etc, but really a pain for anything else.

	What about the Welsh... (none / 0) (#16)
	by furniture on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 07:00:19 AM PST

	you really should put a link to the UN, EU, NAFTA etc as to insure this will be forced internationally -as the Welsh are not bound by US laws. And I dread to think what will happen if the Welsh will continue to code in VB and other inferior languages relying on knowledge of English.

	spelling C (none / 0) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 01:57:58 PM PST

	Thanks for that article, I needed a good laugh this morning. I've programmed in Ada, Java, C, C++ and machine code. All of my programs run on military applications. Ada is good, Java is good, C and C++ are both messy, over complicated, under powered and prone to errors. Or is the only reason you actually wrote about C++ is because any other language is to difficult for you to spell easily?

	Latest developments (none / 0) (#29)
	by walwyn on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 05:41:14 AM PST

	All of my programs run on military applications. Have you tried running them on LPG I gather you get greater performance at reduced cost, with minimal conversion consts.

	Twice the posts for half the money (n/t) (none / 0) (#31)
	by cheetah on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 07:19:44 AM PST

	Now I know... (none / 0) (#32)
	by walwyn on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 09:18:10 AM PST

	...just what its like to savaged by a dead sheep. James Callaghan

	please... (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 02:38:33 PM PST

	This is a story (supposedly) about programming. not an story about your love life.

	I hope you're not (none / 0) (#36)
	by walwyn on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 07:05:36 PM PST

	using my post to flirt with adjacent posters. I really don't like being used as the go-between in your sordid affairs.

	Latest developments (none / 0) (#30)
	by walwyn on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 05:42:03 AM PST

	All of my programs run on military applications. Have you tried running them on LPG I gather you get greater performance at reduced cost, with minimal conversion costs.