Hacker News Reader

Comment by yosefk | Hacker News Reader

A good example of human behavior in TFA as well as the talk it cites is how deeply convinced they are that C++ is objectively always better than C; they don't even try to suggest that there could be a tradeoff and sometimes C would be better. Of course the guy in the talk makes a living from C++ consulting; another part of human behavior is it's hard to convince someone of a truth which threatens their paycheck.

And I'm not here to argue how terrible C++ is (I've done enough of that elsewhere), but only that "behavioral" arguments cut both ways, and are usually little more than an ad hominem attack and/or some good old marketing tricks rebranded as "behavioral science."

View on HN

And a good example in the comments here is how few people are talking about what the article is actually about (human behaviour) but instead there's mostly anti-C++ reactions. The aversion to C++ is so strong that an article that only casually is about C++ must be attacked for the perceived C++ advocacy. The article isn't really about C++ advocacy at all.

It really doesn't matter if C++ is better or not. The article doesn't really even try to talk much about that at all. No matter what C++ may do, what it may change, what it may improve, how it may perform, how it can be simplified; it's almost impossible to convince C programmers to try C++ (or golang, or Rust, or D).

The article really is about how it's almost impossible to change someone's mind on any topic. Anyone who likes to engage in internet discussions is well aware of the phenomenon.

To be honest the article's kind of bullshit regardless of what angle you view it from. Some of my favourite parts are:

> the fundamental energy that underlies and is responsible for the universe is consciousness. So consciousness is inherently logical.

> Since humans are a part of the universe ... humans are also logical or rational by nature.

> We’re born with the need for sexual satisfaction, yet society teaches us ... to suppress and even repress our sexuality. This is one of the most important seeds for irrational thinking that gets planted into our minds.

There's enough pseudo-scientific bullshit on the rest of this person's site that I'm very wary of drawing any conclusions from this article.

The article is a 4,000 word diatribe about how stubborn, irrational people refuse to see reason, without at any point admitting the possibility that these backward, incorrigible C holdouts could be right in any way.

It's not about C holdouts being unreasonable at all. They're only mentioned in the first three paragraphs of the article. The article isn't about C or C++. It's about why you and I are arguing right now: we're both irrational.

> It's not about C holdouts being unreasonable at all. They're only mentioned in the first three paragraphs of the article.

That's not true; they are mentioned several times in the first big bullet list. Also the Dan Saks talk he discusses several times throughout the article is specifically about talking to C programmers about C++.

But regardless of whether he is speaking about something specific (C vs. C++) or in the abstract (rational vs. irrational people), he is making the same flawed presumption: that certain choices (like C++) are unquestionably better than other choices (like C), and that if people can't see this then the only possible explanation is some kind of cognitive impairment.

The whole argument presumes that the author is smarter and more rational than other people. He might not even realize he is doing this, but other people can most definitely pick up on it.

> The whole argument presumes that the author is smarter

Aha, so that's why everyone is posting comments about how terrible C++ is. The author is coming across like an ass, so we must attack that which he appears to be defending: C++.

I don't really pick up on the bad attitude (probably because I have it too), and I don't really care that much to defend C++ or C. I went through the article, noted a few references to whatever psychological studies were there, and decided to read those later. I don't really care if C or C++ is "better". I barely use either anymore.

> And I'm not here to argue how terrible C++ is (I've done enough of that elsewhere)

Haha that's one way to put it :p

For those new to this debate: Yosef Kreinin is the author of the (in)famous C++ Frequently Questioned Answers.[0] it's quite a body of work. Speaking of which: thanks for writing it, Yosef. I greatly enjoyed reading it back in the day, and it had a big impact on young me.

[0] http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/

Glad you liked it! It is unfortunately quite out of date as it does not address C++11/14/17; so I put it on github in the hope that people would take over it, as I personally no longer care enough to invest the time it takes (at most I might publish a blog post on this, working title: Modern C++ Feels Just Like Python, My Ass.)

Yeah, I see this trend in "behavioral science" arguments in other areas of debate.

It's especially funny to watch people on both sides of whatever issue argue that the side they're opposed to is in a self-reinforcing bubble that only closes them to the beliefs of their team, which are obviously correct. But, the thought process that produces the belief that their team is correct is incubated in exactly the same sort of bubble that they're complaining about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com