On 07/03/18 13:26, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2018 12:09:31 +0000, mechanic wrote:

On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:56:12 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 04/03/2018 18:39, mechanic wrote:
things have moved on from wading through manuals on assembly.

Even when I was working full time in assembler that was never an issue.
In fact I think I look language things up more often now - C++ is a
_lot_ more complex than any assembler.


Didn't you have difficulty in creating OO structures in assembly? That
level of complexity is hidden in modern development languages,
which is part of their purpose of course. Things have moved on,and C++is
looking a bit ancient. This is progress, a concept denied by the OP in
this sub-thread. Stories about experiences in various shops forty years
ago refute this view.

That rather assumes that one believes OO is always useful, or progress!



Indeed. OO is actually a disaster. It complicates needlessely.

And it forces a stage of design forethought that is not necessary in so
many cases.

It really only has it place in huge companies employing crap coders to
produce bloatware.

The OP is te sort of person who probably thinks that memeory allocation
should be 'handled by the language' and then cant fix a situation where
his code stops for 5 seceonds whole memory garbage collection goes on.



--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

ۥ Confucius