A while ago, I asked a question on SO about something written in C++, but instead of getting an answer to the problem at hand, the comments went all crazy on my coding style, even when I indicated that it was a WIP piece of code and that I meant to clean it up later when I had the base case running. (I got so many down votes that I decided to pull the question, as my rep on SO already is near-abysmal)
It made me wonder why people adopt such a hard line "you're a noob, go fuck yourself" attitude. I was being accused of writing C++ as if it was Java. Something that I cannot understand, and that still baffles me.
I've been programming in quite a few OOP languages for a number of years now, albeit in intervals. I choose the language to use in terms of its available libraries and optimal execution environments for the job at hand. I adopt design patterns in OOP code and I'm quite confident that my use of patterns is sound and that OO wise, I can hold my own. I understand the OOP toolbox, but choose to use the tools only when I think it's really required, not to just use a neat trick to show my coding wits. (Which I know are not top notch, but I think aren't at n00b level either).
I design my code before I write a single line. To define tests, I list the goals of a certain class, and the test criteria that it has to adhere to. Because it is easier to me to create sequence diagrams and then write code, I chose to write my tests after the interface has become obvious.
I must admit that in the piece of code I posted in the question, I was still using pointers, instead of using smart pointers. I use RAII whenever I can. I know proper RAII means safeguarding against nullpointers, but I work incrementally. It was a work in progress and I meant to clean it up later. This way of working was condemned strongly.
In my view, I should have a working example first so I can see if the base case is a viable way of thought. I also happen to think that cleaning up the code is something that is typical of the refactoring phase of agile, after the base case has been proven. I must admit that although I'm slowly getting the Cxx standard, I prefer to use what I understand, instead of taking the risk of using concepts that I have yet to master in production code. I do try new stuff once in a while, but usually in play projects that I have on the side, just for that purpose.
 I'd like to clarify that gnat's suggestion  did not show up in the search I did before I started to ask my question. However although his suggestion does cover one aspect of the question, the question he linked to does not answer the heart of my question, just part of it. My question is more about the response I got to my coding style and the professional aspects of handling different coding styles and (apparent) levels of skill. With my previous question on SO and it's response as a case in point. [/edit]
The question then is: why scoff someone that doesn't use your coding style?
The matters/subdivisions at hand for me are:
- Why would it be a bad programming practice to use more error prone code in prototype situations, if refactoring makes it more robust afterward?
- How would can program written in C++ be like it was written in Java? What makes it a bad program, (considering that I indicated the intent of the current style and the planned work to improve?)
- How would I be a bad professional if I chose to use a construct that is used in a certain programming paradigm (e.g. OOP/DP)?