4 ms·
Maybe I'm reading this wrong. But most of the criticisms apply to several other languages that are generally not considered to suck. Generally the criticisms le
by iofj 11y ago
Maybe I'm reading this wrong. But most of the criticisms apply to several other languages that are generally not considered to suck. Generally the criticisms leveled here are that C++ is too low level.
But if that's the problem, maybe you should simply switch to ... well almost any other language. Python/Java/C#/ML/Go/... all will not have most of the problems listed in this article. But there'll be a cost to pay in performance.
Also this person is clearly not a C++ expert. A lot of the claims are wrong, in some others there are subtleties being missed. And some make you wonder if he's using MSVC++ 98 or something equally insane.
- Recurecur 11y ago"But if that's the problem, maybe you should simply switch to ... well almost any other language. Python/Java/C#/ML/Go/... all will not have most of the problems listed in this article. But there'll be a cost to pay in performance." The problem is that not a single one of the languages you list is a replacement for C++ in its most important use cases: real time, and small embedded systems. They're not good for real time due to GC (and/or poor performance, see Python). They're not good for small embedded systems due to GC and/or huge footprint. Swift is the only thing to come along in quite a while that might be a good replacement in a lot of cases.