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.[edit] I'd like to clarify that gnat's suggestion [1] 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)?[1] Develop fast and buggy, then correct errors or be slow, careful for each line of code?
Why is it bad to write something in language X as if you're writing a program in language Y in terms of using a shared coding paradigm
java;c++;object oriented;coding style
Without seeing the code in question, there are a few ways to write Java code in C++, some worse than others.At the one extreme, there's laying out your source like Java: everything in one file, everything within the class definition, etc.:class HelloWorldApp {public:    void main() {        cout << Hello World! << endl;    }};This is how Java source would be laid out.  It's technically legal in C++, but putting everything in the header file and everything inline (by defining it in the class declaration) is terrible style and will kill your compile performance.  Don't do it.Excessively OO - To oversimplify, in Java, it's the Kingdom of the Nouns, where everything is an object.  Good (i.e., idiomatic) C++ code is more likely to use free functions, templates, etc., instead of trying to cram everything into an object.No RAII - You already mentioned this - using pointers and manual cleanup instead of smart pointers.  C++ gives you tools like RAII and smart pointers, so good (i.e., idiomatic) C++ code uses those tools.No advanced C++ - The basics of Java and C++ are similar enough, but once you get into more advanced features (templates, C++'s algorithms library, etc.), they start to diverge.Except for #1, none of these make a C++ program a bad program, but it's also not the kind of code I prefer to work on as a C++ programmer.  (I also wouldn't enjoy working with non-idiomatic or C-style Perl, non-idiomatic Python, etc.)  A language has its own tools and idioms and philosophy, and good code uses those tools and idioms instead of trying to use the lowest common denominator or trying to reproduce another language's approach.  Writing non-idiomatic code in a particular language / problem domain / whatever doesn't make someone a bad programmer, it just means that they have more to learn about that language / problem domain / whatever.  And there's nothing wrong with that; there's a very long list of things I have more to learn about, and C++ in particular has an absolute ton of stuff to learn.Regarding the particular question of writing error-prone code with the intent to clean it up later, it's not black and white:If some prototype code fails to handle every possible exception and every possible corner case, then that's to be expected.  Get it working, then get it working robustly.  No problem.If some prototype code is written in what's simply a bad style or a bad design (bad for the given language and its idioms, a fundamentally bad design for the problem, etc.), then unless you're writing it as a throw-away proof-of-concept, you're not gaining anything.To use raw pointers versus smart pointers as an example, if you're going to work in C++, using RAII and smart pointers are fundamental enough that it should be faster to write code that way than to go back and clean it up later.  Again, failing to do this doesn't mean someone's a bad programmer, unprofessional, etc., but it does mean there's more to learn.