2 ms·

If one particular language suffers so much from all its programmers being incompetent, it should raise the question of what about the language makes it so hard.

by pekk 11y ago

If one particular language suffers so much from all its programmers being incompetent, it should raise the question of what about the language makes it so hard. You can't reasonably dispute that C++ is a gigantic language full of optional features. To be competent with C++, you really have to learn which features to use or not. It's too bad that not everybody agrees on which features to use! Blaming outgroup C developers for everything is a cop-out.

unscaled 11y ago
Oh, if it was only so easy! There are many other languages which abound with incompetent programmers. Even an atrociously simple languages had many incompetent programmers over the years. On the other hand, there don't seem to be a lot of incompetent Haskell programmers. It's usually practical reasons which determine the influx of newbies with no previous experience and little incentive to learn to a language. Popularity-wise, C++ was the Java of the 90s, and many programmers came during that time and don't want to learn anything new. Many other programmers are essentially not willing to learn C++ features beyond the features they're already comfortable with. "Which features not to use" is another myth propagated by professional C++-bashers. There are very few features in C++ that you shouldn't use, and most of them are officially deprecated parts of the standard library. The real problem is developers who refuse to learn templates, because "void pointers are simpler", or reject std::array, because it's fancy C+11 stuff and writing "char myArray[100]" is much shorter than "std:array<char, 100> myArray;". They then go on to forget std::array ever exist, and complain that vector is too inefficient, so they're going to use C arrays all the way. If you're willing to use all these newfangled features like closures, initializer lists, 1-part for or constexprs, its' very hard to shoot yourself in the foot. It's very easy to shoot yourself in the foot by using raw C arrays or manual malloc/free though.

by pekk 11y ago

unscaled 11y ago

Oh, if it was only so easy! There are many other languages which abound with incompetent programmers. Even an atrociously simple languages had many incompetent programmers over the years. On the other hand, there don't seem to be a lot of incompetent Haskell programmers. It's usually practical reasons which determine the influx of newbies with no previous experience and little incentive to learn to a language. Popularity-wise, C++ was the Java of the 90s, and many programmers came during that time and don't want to learn anything new. Many other programmers are essentially not willing to learn C++ features beyond the features they're already comfortable with. "Which features not to use" is another myth propagated by professional C++-bashers. There are very few features in C++ that you shouldn't use, and most of them are officially deprecated parts of the standard library. The real problem is developers who refuse to learn templates, because "void pointers are simpler", or reject std::array, because it's fancy C+11 stuff and writing "char myArray[100]" is much shorter than "std:array<char, 100> myArray;". They then go on to forget std::array ever exist, and complain that vector is too inefficient, so they're going to use C arrays all the way. If you're willing to use all these newfangled features like closures, initializer lists, 1-part for or constexprs, its' very hard to shoot yourself in the foot. It's very easy to shoot yourself in the foot by using raw C arrays or manual malloc/free though.