Hello,

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.


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

Amine Moulay Ramdane wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> Amine Moulay Ramdane.

:-)  Indeed!

-- 
Tredmill

> {quote:title=Amine Moulay Ramdane wrote:}{quote}
> Hello,
> 
> 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, ... this is why i say that C and C++ are bad.

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?).

> {quote:title=Joseph Mitzen wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=Amine Moulay Ramdane wrote:}{quote}
> > Hello,
> > 
> > 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, ... this is why i say that C and C++ are bad.
> 
> 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.

Hello...


You have seen me thinking about social darwinism , and i have told you 
before that we are in fact still living in a social darwinist world that is bad 
cause if we evaluate this world and this life that we are living in on the criterias 
of "complexity" and "difficulty" and "suffering" you will notice that our world and 
this life are in fact still too difficult and still too complex etc. so this elevate the 
level of social darwinism and this effectivly makes our world and this life a social
darwinist world, if we look at the other criteria like "competition" you will notice that 
there is a kind of laissez-faire capitalism that encourages competition between humans 
and companies and that accept and encourages competition that leads to destroying and 
killing the competition and that is accepted even by gouvernements and states , this 
extremist view and kind of laissez-faire capitalism etc. that leads to this high level of 
social darwinism is not acceptable for me as a socialist, so in this post i want to insist 
on something important, here it is: since we are still living on social darwinist world we have 
to improve another criteria to compensate for this kind extremism, and this criteria is 
"intelligent easiness", since this world is too difficult and still too complex , we have to elevate the
"intelligent easiness", and i define "intelligent easiness" as to easy the things and the processes 
to the maximum and kepping at the same time a high "quality".



Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

Hello...

I have tried to explain to you my ideas in english although i speak badly english..


Here is my final words about C and C++:

C and C++ are wild beasts that hurts the weaker human among us, those 
C and C++ wild beasts can be powerful, but even though they can be powerful 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 my final words about C and C++



Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

Amine Moulay Ramdane wrote:

> On the criterias of "complexity" and "difficulty", the C and C++
> programming languages are more complex and difficult than Object
> Pascal for example

Actually I would agree with you about C++ - I find it horrendous.  But
I've always found C to be very easy.  The trick is to forget about all
the pointer arithmetic and such stuff that it supports, and just stick
to the basics.  Obviously you can't do that when you are working on
someone else's code.  But when it's your own code, I find C to be
slightly easier that Basic.

-- 
SteveT

Amine Moulay Ramdane wrote:

> I have tried to explain to you my ideas in english although i speak
> badly english..

Hi Amine,

Don't let your lack of skill with a language that is not your native
language dissuade you from discussing things here.  Your English is
just fine, and you get your ideas across well.

> C and C++ are wild beasts that hurts the weaker human among us, those 
> C and C++ wild beasts can be powerful, but even though they can be
> powerful 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.

Consider this, if you will.  Probably less than 1% of all humans are
able to write a simple "hello world" program in any computer language,
even Basic or Delphi, which are pretty easy to use for simple things.
Would you then say that ALL computer languages are bad, because they
are inaccessible to 99+% of all humans?

Sure, some tools are more difficult to use than others.  Take for
example, airplanes.  I can fly a small, single engine airplane, but a 4
engine airliner is beyond my piloting skills.  Is the airliner bad
because I haven't had the $100,000 worth of training required to learn
to fly it?  If you are one of the millions of people who travel by
airlines every year, you'll probably say no.  Perhaps if you are a
pilot who wants to fly airliners, and can't afford the training, you'd
say yes.

I don't believe it is possible to make all things accessible to all
people.  Not in this world, and not even in a "perfect" world, whatever
that might look like.  Things are what they are, and if you want it bad
enough, just like all those airline pilots, you'll find a way to get
there.

-- 
Cheers,
Van

"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
judgment." - Will Rogers