3 ms·
I think the failings in this article stems from a misunderstanding on how to use C++ correctly, and just compares it to a language the author is more familiar w
by baldajan 11y ago
I think the failings in this article stems from a misunderstanding on how to use C++ correctly, and just compares it to a language the author is more familiar with, C#. C++ most definitely has a lot of faults, but at the same time, I've seen and worked with some truly awesome code bases using C++. And the above statement can be used for nearly every language that rapidly evolves (C++ pre 2011 was... well, a pain in the a to use).
All in all, I do wish these articles wouldn't make it to the front page of HN, because they don't really add much value to the community, but simply acts as a negative rant, not adding anything constructive.
- alkonaut 11y ago> All in all, I do wish these articles wouldn't make it to the front page of HN, because they don't really add much value to the community In my opinion the positive value provided by [legacy tool X is really bad] is if you read it like [X is being used not for technical merit but just because of momentum and the fact that we have grown comfortable with it and we really should be adopting alternatives Y or Z at a faster rate than we do]. Titles of articles are often "X is bad" or "X considered harmful" or some other inflammatory clickbait title. That's unfortunate, but it's how the web works. If just a handful of people read these posts, nod, and then take a look at Rust (for example) then that's value. Yesterday X was git, on saturday X was glibc, today X is C++ and so on.
- RotsiserMho 11y agoI think the discussion such an article generates has value. I've learned about some nice C++ tools in this thread that I may not have otherwise.