DISQUS

Apple has become famous for integrating culture and lifestyle into their products. The same holds true for the iPhone. The feature set doesn't matter. Why do you think that the iPod caught on? It's not particularly technically interesting; my little Samsung MP3 player does everything I need, is about the size of a shuffle, but has a screen and an FM tuner.

It seems to me that the iPhone will have the same thing going on. But only more so, because it appeals more to the geek than the iPod ever has. Seriously; a Darwin-based operating system? A WebKit-based browser? Who cares if it's locked down, is expensive, and has limited 3G connectivity (although its range there doesn't seem _too_ bad)? Not to mention that it just plain looks sweet.

To quote The Matrix, "I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin." It's impossible to predict where the iPhone will go, but it seems that it's going to be a uniformly reasonably popular product that especially appeals to people who buy into the Apple culture. It's also possible that it will continue to breed interest in more advanced phones.

Thanks for the feedback, Wolfgang. I will agree that my knowledge of C++ is less than what would be optimal for critiquing it.

C++ does indeed have more features than C or Python. I question whether these features actually help it or not, however.

If you understand the error messages, good for you. Personally, I have better things to do than read a page or two of template errors for a trivial glitch when a single line would tell me just as much >90% of the time.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not talking about beauty in the code, however (although I think that the abstractions that C++ allows can be more trouble than they're worth); I'm talking about the actual syntax of the language itself. I'm sure once you see it enough times, it looks fine. But I like the K.I.S.S. rule when applied to languages; the syntax of the language itself should be minimal and just enough to perform the required task. Python has a much simpler method of operator overloading, for example (although it isn't an optimal comparison as Python doesn't have static types).

Again, thanks for the comment. You probably do have more experience with C++ than I do, and therefore you probably are more qualified to discuss the topic than I am. I'm just remarking on my thoughts on the matter, with some quotes thrown in for good measure. In the end, the language you like is more a matter of taste than anything else. If you like C++, then that's great. More power to you.

Congratulations on completely missing my point. Your fantastic syntactical structure and phrasing makes a powerful argument.

C++ was not hard for me to learn. It was, however, harder than C, and I'm arguing that the added complexity does more bad than good.

Also, do you have any rationale for its being "a very good programing [sic] language"? Under most debate systems that I'm familiar with, one has to offer counter-evidence to their opposition. Unless you can quote a study disproving all that I have said, my points still stand.

It's not really a security flaw as much as it is too complex. UNIX is concentrated essence of simplicity, because the simpler a system is the less likely it is to fail and the easy to fix it is.
Come up with an exploit that uses Ubuntu's use of sudo. I dare you :P