*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

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> So as far as I'm concerned, "disclosing" is the fixing of the bug. It's 
> the "look at the source" approach.

Btw, and you may not like this, since you are so focused on security, one 
reason I refuse to bother with the whole security circus is that I think 
it glorifies - and thus encourages - the wrong behavior.

It makes "heroes" out of security people, as if the people who don't just 
fix normal bugs aren't as important.

In fact, all the boring normal bugs are _way_ more important, just because 
there's a lot more of them. I don't think some spectacular security hole 
should be glorified or cared about as being any more "special" than a 
random spectacular crash due to bad locking.

Security people are often the black-and-white kind of people that I can't 
stand. I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys, in 
that they make such a big deal about concentrating on security to the 
point where they pretty much admit that nothing else matters to them.

To me, security is important. But it's no less important than everything 
*else* that is also important!

"While you are at it, could you also fork gnome, and support a gnome2 environment?"

"I want my sane interfaces back. I have yet to meet anybody who likes the unholy mess that is gnome3."

"It's not that I have rendering problems with gnome3 (although I do have those too), it's that the user experience of Gnome3 even without rendering problems is unacceptable.

Why can't I have shortcuts on my desktop? Why can't I have the expose functionality? Wobbly windows?Why does anybody sane think that it's a good idea to have that "go to the crazy 'activities'" menu mode? I used to be upset when gnome developers decided it was "too complicated" for the user to remap some mouse buttons. In gnome3, the developers have apparently decided that it's "too complicated" to actually do real work on your desktop, and have decided to make it really annoying to do.

Here's an example of "the crazy": you want a new terminal window. So you go to "activities" and press the "terminal" thing that you've made part of your normal desktop thing (but why can't I just have it on the desktop, instead of in that insane "activities" mode?). What happens? Nothing. It brings your existing terminal to the forefront.

That's just crazy crap. Now I need to use Shift-Control-N in an old terminal to bring up a new one. Yeah, that's a real user experience improvement. Sure.

I'm sure there are other ways, but that's just an example of the kind of "head up the arse" behavior of gnome3. Seriously. I have been asking other developers about gnome3, they all think it's crazy. I'm using Xfce. I think it's a step down from gnome2, but it's a huge step up from gnome3. Really."

...

struct q : public n {
	cfunc <void> aocb;

	q() {
	}

	q(const cfunc<void>& pocb) : aocb(pocb) {
	}

	void p() {
		aocb();
	}
};

struct r : public n {
	QString s;
	bool t;

	r() {
		t = 0;
	}
};

struct u : public r {
};

...

class an : public ac, public QThread {

...

class ac {

...

pq an::au;

struct ba : public QFile, public ac {

	ba(const QString& bb, QObject * ae) : QFile(bb), ac(ae) {
	};

	bool bc() {
		if (!open(QIODevice::ReadOnly)) {
			QString aa("(W) can't open for reading: ");
			aa += fileName();
			al(aa);
			return 0;
		};
		return 1;
	}
};

struct bd : public QFile {