4 ms·

It seems to me that you have a particular idea about what C++ "stands for". C++ doesn't stand for ANYTHING. It's a design-by-committee warty mess that was ill

It seems to me that you have a particular idea about what C++ "stands for". C++ doesn't stand for ANYTHING. It's a design-by-committee warty mess that was ill-born to begin with and the surgeons have been grafting new limbs onto it for years trying to make it less horrific. It may now resemble Cthulhu, but pretty it ain't. IMO, of course.

huhtenberg 11y ago
Precisely. Every C++ programmer I know uses their own narrow subset of C++. Except that those using "hardcore" ++ features appear to be far more vocal about their subset being the one true way to use C++.
svalorzen 11y ago
Are you hoping to accomplish something with this comment or are you just having a bad morning and need to vent?
- fit2rule 11y ago
  In point of fact, I agree with what he said, it accomplishes in me an understanding that in fact C++ is a warty thorny bush of mess, and leads me to conclude that a significant aspect of 'being a C++ coder' is to find ones way, beautifully or otherwise, through it all. I've seen great C++ code that I just thoroughly enjoy reading, because it doesn't make assumptions about anyones' intelligence, and I've seen C++ code that is purely designed exclusively for only the elite who are mighty enough to wield the sticks that the C++ committee provide. C++ really gives all kinds of control authority to any style you wish to use .. another of those quaint software ironies that the power that makes one weak, enlightens another ..
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I'll third that. C++ jumped the shark with C++98. I don't enjoy reading "modern C++."
- peterashford 11y ago
  I was hoping to share an opinion. I don't hate C++ when I use it - like every other C++ coder with their sanity intact, I use a subset that I understand and which usually doesn't blow off my toes. The problem is that invariably your safe subset intersects with someone else's and that's when the pain starts.
- kabdib 11y ago
  I agree with the guy. C++ is getting better, but its early development was driven by questionable features (iostreams, ugh) and denial that the language / runtime needed some basic features, like string and buffer types that didn't suck. I've been using the language since 1987, and still have my own safe subset, augmented recently with some of the C11 stuff that's become solid in the toolchains I use. But it's still a misfeature-ridden grabfest of a language.

huhtenberg 11y ago

Precisely. Every C++ programmer I know uses their own narrow subset of C++. Except that those using "hardcore" ++ features appear to be far more vocal about their subset being the one true way to use C++.

svalorzen 11y ago

Are you hoping to accomplish something with this comment or are you just having a bad morning and need to vent?

fit2rule 11y ago
In point of fact, I agree with what he said, it accomplishes in me an understanding that in fact C++ is a warty thorny bush of mess, and leads me to conclude that a significant aspect of 'being a C++ coder' is to find ones way, beautifully or otherwise, through it all. I've seen great C++ code that I just thoroughly enjoy reading, because it doesn't make assumptions about anyones' intelligence, and I've seen C++ code that is purely designed exclusively for only the elite who are mighty enough to wield the sticks that the C++ committee provide. C++ really gives all kinds of control authority to any style you wish to use .. another of those quaint software ironies that the power that makes one weak, enlightens another ..
- rayiner 11y ago
  I'll third that. C++ jumped the shark with C++98. I don't enjoy reading "modern C++."
peterashford 11y ago
I was hoping to share an opinion. I don't hate C++ when I use it - like every other C++ coder with their sanity intact, I use a subset that I understand and which usually doesn't blow off my toes. The problem is that invariably your safe subset intersects with someone else's and that's when the pain starts.
kabdib 11y ago
I agree with the guy. C++ is getting better, but its early development was driven by questionable features (iostreams, ugh) and denial that the language / runtime needed some basic features, like string and buffer types that didn't suck. I've been using the language since 1987, and still have my own safe subset, augmented recently with some of the C11 stuff that's become solid in the toolchains I use. But it's still a misfeature-ridden grabfest of a language.