Bjarne Stroustrup
Computer scientist and creator of the C++ programming language.
Page 1 of 1
Proof by analogy is fraud.
If you think it's simple, then you have misunderstood the problem.
"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling.
Design and programming are human activities; forget that and all is lost.
Far too often, "software engineering" is neither engineering nor about software. Bjarne Stroustrup's FAQ: Did you really say that?. Retrieved on 2011-04-11.
If it doesn't compile on my computer - it doesn't exist.
There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses. Bjarne Stroustrup's FAQ: Did you really say that?. Retrieved on 2007-11-15.
An organisation that treats its programmers as morons will soon have programmers that are willing and able to act like morons only.
A program that has not been tested does not work.
People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don't.
Within C++, there is a much smaller and cleaner language struggling to get out.
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone.
The connection between the language in which we think/program and the problems and solutions we can imagine is very close. For this reason restricting language features with the intent of eliminating programmer errors is at best dangerous.
[Corporate programming] is often done to the point where the individual is completely submerged in corporate "culture" with no outlet for unique talents and skills. Corporate practices can be directly hostile to individuals with exceptional skills and initiative in technical matters. I consider such management of technical people cruel and wasteful.
C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off.
"How to test?" is a question that cannot be answered in general. "When to test?" however, does have a general answer: as early and as often as possible.
There are more useful systems developed in languages deemed awful than in languages praised for being beautiful--many more.
I do not think that safety should be bought at the cost of complicating the expression of good solutions to real-life problems.
Page 1 of 1