7 ms·

What's wrong with C++ (from the point of view of someone that uses it daily)

50 points by blub 16y ago

duncanj 16y ago
const type* const has always been a warning flag to me when I read it in other people's code. What are the advantages of making the pointer itself const?
- slug 16y ago
  I find it the opposite, when I read code that doesn't use const at all. In that case you want to make sure that code doesn't change either the value the pointer is pointing to and where the pointer is pointing to :) <pre> #include <stdio.h> void function ( int const * const value ) { printf ("%d\n", * value); / * more code * / ( * value)++; / * more code * / ++value; } int main(int argc, char * * argv) { int value = 1; int * pvalue = &value; function(pvalue); return 0; } $ gcc t1.c t1.c: In function ‘function’: t1.c:5: error: increment of read-only location ‘* value’ t1.c:7: error: increment of read-only location ‘value’ </pre> quick googling: http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/const_correctness.html http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/const_correctness.html EDIT: how can we properly paste code in here? The * mess things up.
  - parenthesis 16y ago
    http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc
  - pietrofmaggi 16y ago
    Usually you take a look at the FAQ and read the http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc page. #include <stdio.h> void function(int const * const value) { printf ("%d\n", *value); /* more code */ (*value)++; /* more code */ ++value; } int main(int argc, char **argv) { int value = 1; int *pvalue = &value; function(pvalue); return 0; } $gcc t1.c t1.c: In function ‘function’: t1.c:9: error: increment of read-only location t1.c:13: error: increment of read-only location BTW: I agree, const is really useful EDIT: I've recompiled on OSX to correct the error message with the correct lines.
  - duncanj 16y ago
    I think you misunderstand. When I see, in a function like yours void function(int const * const value) it worries me because it shows me that the writer doesn't know the meaning of const. There is no added value of this declaration over void function(int const *value) or the more commonly seen void function(const int *value) The only thing that has changed in your code is that the implementor of the function can't modify his own private copy of the pointer.
- flatline 16y ago
  To ensure there are no side effects - at least to ensure that that object in question is not mutated. I think const refs are a little more useful than const pointers for this.
  - alextgordon 16y ago
    Do you find const actually catches bugs? I admittedly don't use C++ that frequently, but if I make my code const-correct it always seems to cause a lot of false positives, while seldom finding actual bugs.
    - danieldk 16y ago
      I disagree, especially const-correct methods help avoiding mutation. The primary mistake IMO is that const can be cast away. Invariant should be invariant (like D).
      - jpr 16y ago
        A lot of people seem to be horrified that you can cast constness away. Maybe they have more traumatic experiences than I do, but I believe that if something is possible to do (modifiying an object that is declared const), it should be possible in the language as well. That does not mean it should have well specified semantics or that it should be done without proper considerations.
    - nickelplate 16y ago
      const does not so much catch bugs as it prevents them. It is a way to specify a contract. If your code is const-correct, the next programmer using or maintaining your code can read a function or method signature and know immediately which parameters will not change, or whether the object will be modified. Effective C++ explains this very well, and I fell in love with const after reading its second edition almost 10 years ago.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    That would be const type pointer. (HN apparently won't let me type more than one asterisk in the message without turning everything between them to italics.) const type pointer const is a const pointer to a const object, i.e. the pointer itself can't be mutated to point to a different object. I've never found a need for it. I usually don't care if the pointer itself is modified, particularly since such modifications are usually local and obvious.
zaphar 16y ago
Perhaps the point is that C++ is heavy and if there are alternatives you should use them instead. Just because you invested years getting up to speed doesn't mean everyone else should do the same. I have to use C++ at work occasionally so I'll probably end up having a few years invested in getting to know C++ too. But at this stage the startup cost is considerable and very very present. If I had a choice I wouldn't consider it a good value.
- danieldk 16y ago
  In the standard C++ world, yes. However, if you use a rich class library, such as Qt, there is not all that much difference in difficulty compared to e.g. Java (even down to Java-style iterators).
yonilevy 16y ago
The template error messages part has been improved quite a bit in clang (LLVM's standard front-end) in comparison to gcc. If you haven't already, give it a try.
- pietrofmaggi 16y ago
  CLang Error recovery works like magics: http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/amazing-feats-of-clang-error-recovery.html http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/amazing-feats-of-clang-error-re...
keeptrying 16y ago
I've been using C++ for the last 6 years. Recently I moved to the web group which uses ruby and seriously, I never want to code another line of C++ ever. I dont feel that way about C though and its probably because of C++'s immense complexity. If everyone on your team has 7+ years of using C++ and most of its features on a day to day basis then I think you have a chance (however remote) of getting a clean maintainable system. If not you get a good ugly mess. (And yes I've created a few myself, while learning this language :)
- codingthewheel 16y ago
  Do you really think this is a fair comparison? Web dev has never been C++'s strong point. I could as well say, "so, I've been using Haskell for desktop and console gaming. After 6 years, I moved to C++ and man, I never want to code a line of Haskell again." Because it's a completely inappropriate language choice. Also re: maintainability. C++ is completely maintainable, and built from the ground up for maintainability specifically in large projects. Don't blame C++ for the sins of Microsoft (managed C++ extensions, DLL HEll, C++ COM interfaces, compiler support classes, 9 different string types). Don't blame C++ for the sins of gcc. At some point we need to distinguish between the (pure) LANGUAGE and the (often politically motivated) TOOLSET.
  - zokier 16y ago
    I don't think actually that C++ as a language is a inappropriate for web dev, but it lacks the great frameworks that more popular choices have (RoR, Django etc).
    - codingthewheel 16y ago
      Agreed. There is no really good web framework for C++. This is a weakness of C++ going forward. I suppose you could do ASP.NET or ASP.NET MVC with C++/CLI...though in that case it would seem C# or VB.NET is indicated...
    - danieldk 16y ago
      I am not sure, a lot of convenience of modern web frameworks is made possible using introspection and other runtime facilities, which are too minimal in C++.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mrvir 16y ago
One man project with 25 KLOC? A bit limited example IMO. No problem with C++ strings if you don't use 'em. Well, that's a solution ...
16s 16y ago
boost has a nice threading library too. He didn't mention that when listing other portable threading alternatives and I think the boost implementation will be in the next standard.
forkandwait 16y ago
Folks often poo-poo Apple's choice of Objective C, but I find that a VERY graceful object oriented extension of C, and far nicer than C++ or Java (yuck!).
- thought_alarm 16y ago
  I did GUI development in C++ for a number of years, and it really boggles the mind just how much more suitable Objective-C is for high-level application design than C++/COM, and without the overhead of a VM. C++ has its place, but that place is getting smaller and smaller each day, making the advanced features of C++ all the more irrelevant.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
d0m 16y ago
I find this post to be a little bit like saying: "Why running with one leg is great" - written by someone who run each days with one leg. Of course, if you're using C++ each days of your life, you become quite good at it. You know the downside, you learn to use external libraries, etc. However, it's when you actually switch to another language that you can look behind realize all the time and effort you lost. It's when you actually start running with 2 legs that you know for sure that, yes maybe one leg is ok, but 2 legs is easier, simpler, faster and safer. Oh, some says it's better to use a car, well, I don't care because 2 legs is ok for me. [to be completed]
- ramchip 16y ago
  > Of course, if you're using C++ each days of your life, you become quite good at it. You know the downside, you learn to use external libraries, etc. However, it's when you actually switch to another language that you can look behind realize all the time and effort you lost. I work on a real-time visualization application for microscopes. Main requirements: 1) Performance (DSP and image processing involved) 2) Decent GUI 3) Must be maintainable by students in engineering physics What I am supposed to use that's easier, simpler, faster and safer than C++/Qt for this? Even dropping the "maintainable" thing, I don't see any language that would let me code faster. And my app doesn't have very unusual requirements...
  - d0m 16y ago
    The fact that you are forced to use C++ for all the reasons you said doesn't make it a better language. Again, to continue my comparison with legs: If you lose one of your shoes and need to walk in the street, you might be better to jump with only one leg.. it doesn't make it better than 2 legs. In the same way, if you needed raw performance, need to control your memory, etc. C++ might be the only way to go. However, for your particular problem, I don't know if it's possible, but a mix of Python for GUI and C for the raw algorithm could have been easier. And, for students in engineering physics, Python is way simpler than C++. From my experience, I helped students in other concentration than computer at university, and they had all kind of: #include <iostream.h>, lots of global variable named with only one letter, etc.. in their code. But don't get me wrong, C++ has its use and I keep using it again and again for various project. I know however that when I can use other language such as python, I'm way more effective and the final code is really prettier and simpler. Sadly, as in everything in life, nothing is black or white.. if C++ fits you well for a project, uses it. It's nobody's business anyway. I think it's important however to know that if you only use and know C++, you miss something.
known 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B#Criticism
tmsh 16y ago
What's wrong with C++ can ironically be summed up by how a C++ (or C) compiler would parse 'C++'. If the value of C++ were accessed at that line, a temporary would be generated to access the original C value, and then after the line C would be incremented. The idea is that most other languages are ++C. or ++A. The operation isn't straddled across two lines. Backwards compatibility with another language (C) isn't so important. And all the language features aren't generated implicitly without a real clear idea about the design (i.e., via temporaries). On the other hand, it is possible to program in something like ++C -- no temporaries -- by consciously going through and picking which features you like in C++, and not waiting for them to influence your design in some weird way (hence these types of posts about C++, and how different programmers have different takes on the language -- and different tools, moc, etc.). That is, if you want to write really elegant C++ code, you have to write it with a vengeance. It's not orthogonal really like Python or Ruby. It's much more like Perl. Just as the compiler is generating unnecessary cycles by creating that temporary (9/10), so are the C++ design paradigms often very overlapping and if you're not careful and don't understand them in detail -- they'll create a lot of unnecessary design cycles. But I think with the right tools and the right focused perspective, it's still one of the best languages. It's not forgiving -- and sometimes it's almost misleading -- I mean from the very beginning, you'd think if you wanted simply to increment an integer or an object semantically you'd just foo++ -- but that'd usually be wrong. But the redeeming part about C++ is that all languages make these mistakes. All languages, in trying to improve on their predecessors, make limiting choices that are imperfect and at some point will be optimized or revised in the future. The beauty, if you can call it that, of C++ -- is that because of its performance bent, it doesn't force you to choose any of its features which aren't already in C.
jhg 16y ago
With regards to the const part of the discussion - Does anyone knows any research or even a state of affairs of const inference in language design? The idea is similar to type inference whereby a compiler (or some other tool in a chain) would take care of understanding which arguments/variables/functions are going to be const and generate appropriate warnings based on that. For example, void foo(int * a) { (*a)++; } void bar(int * b) { foo(b); } void baz(const int * c) { bar(c); } A compiler would generate a warning when baz function, because foo() includes a non-const operation on its argument, bar() is non-const for the same reason, and so it cannot be called for a const pointer.
- jpr 16y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean, since current compilers already warn if you write that code.
  - jhg 16y ago
    Hmm, OK. Try a different example - the compiler should allow the following code without any warnings: void foo(int * a) { } void bar(int * b) { foo(b); } void baz(const int * c) { bar(c); } Point being is that the compiler should warn of the const violation based on whether a function argument or a class member is getting touched in the function code. In fact, the example above is more relevant, because what I am ultimately aiming for is to not need to make member functions const, and yet be able to call them for const class instances.
emerson_clarke 16y ago
I just put a similar response in another post, but its just as appropriate here... If you want to know how C++ can be better, you should take a look at at the Reason C++ framwork, especially if you have never seen C++ in its most pure uncomplicated OO form. http://reasoning.info http://reasoning.info Reason is a C++ framework that ive been writing for about 8 years, which aleviates many of the sources of pain highlighted in this discussion. Writing code with Reason is much more like using a dynamic language, with a full library like Java or .Net. It supports raii, but doesnt use exception handling and doesnt bother with const nonsense or over the top inheritance restrictions. In fact pretty much everything in Reason is public and designed to be derived, modified or enhanced. It has generic programming features, but doesnt force you to write everything as templates (a classic mistake that the standard library makes). For example, you can have an iterator of int's without caring what the underlying container type is, so your code and algorithms can actually be generic, not just infectious templates. Unlike a lot of C++ frameworks and libraries, its not specifically focused on networking, or a few esoteric template classes or collection libraries. Reason is a fully featured systems programming framework with a complete interface to all the usual posix api's and everything else you would expect from a modern language. It has strings, regexes, streams, parsers, sockets, threads, filesystem, encryption, encoding, xml, xpath, collections, time and date, sql (mysql, postgress, sqlite), http (client/server), smart pointers, formatting, logging, and much more. But the features are perhaps not as important as how it is written. It is simple, and very object oriented, everything is designed to work togeather cleanly and obey the principle of least surprise. Just like Python and Ruby, Reason allows you to do a lot in a very small amount of code. So if your wondering how you can have the simplicity of C, with just the good parts of C++, heres your answer. http://reasoning.info http://reasoning.info

50 points by blub 16y ago

const type* const has always been a warning flag to me when I read it in other people's code. What are the advantages of making the pointer itself const?

slug 16y ago
I find it the opposite, when I read code that doesn't use const at all. In that case you want to make sure that code doesn't change either the value the pointer is pointing to and where the pointer is pointing to :) <pre> #include <stdio.h> void function ( int const * const value ) { printf ("%d\n", * value); / * more code * / ( * value)++; / * more code * / ++value; } int main(int argc, char * * argv) { int value = 1; int * pvalue = &value; function(pvalue); return 0; } $ gcc t1.c t1.c: In function ‘function’: t1.c:5: error: increment of read-only location ‘* value’ t1.c:7: error: increment of read-only location ‘value’ </pre> quick googling: http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/const_correctness.html http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/const_correctness.html EDIT: how can we properly paste code in here? The * mess things up.
- parenthesis 16y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc
- pietrofmaggi 16y ago
  Usually you take a look at the FAQ and read the http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc page. #include <stdio.h> void function(int const * const value) { printf ("%d\n", *value); /* more code */ (*value)++; /* more code */ ++value; } int main(int argc, char **argv) { int value = 1; int *pvalue = &value; function(pvalue); return 0; } $gcc t1.c t1.c: In function ‘function’: t1.c:9: error: increment of read-only location t1.c:13: error: increment of read-only location BTW: I agree, const is really useful EDIT: I've recompiled on OSX to correct the error message with the correct lines.
- duncanj 16y ago
  I think you misunderstand. When I see, in a function like yours void function(int const * const value) it worries me because it shows me that the writer doesn't know the meaning of const. There is no added value of this declaration over void function(int const *value) or the more commonly seen void function(const int *value) The only thing that has changed in your code is that the implementor of the function can't modify his own private copy of the pointer.
flatline 16y ago
To ensure there are no side effects - at least to ensure that that object in question is not mutated. I think const refs are a little more useful than const pointers for this.
- alextgordon 16y ago
  Do you find const actually catches bugs? I admittedly don't use C++ that frequently, but if I make my code const-correct it always seems to cause a lot of false positives, while seldom finding actual bugs.
  - danieldk 16y ago
    I disagree, especially const-correct methods help avoiding mutation. The primary mistake IMO is that const can be cast away. Invariant should be invariant (like D).
    - jpr 16y ago
      A lot of people seem to be horrified that you can cast constness away. Maybe they have more traumatic experiences than I do, but I believe that if something is possible to do (modifiying an object that is declared const), it should be possible in the language as well. That does not mean it should have well specified semantics or that it should be done without proper considerations.
  - nickelplate 16y ago
    const does not so much catch bugs as it prevents them. It is a way to specify a contract. If your code is const-correct, the next programmer using or maintaining your code can read a function or method signature and know immediately which parameters will not change, or whether the object will be modified. Effective C++ explains this very well, and I fell in love with const after reading its second edition almost 10 years ago.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  That would be const type pointer. (HN apparently won't let me type more than one asterisk in the message without turning everything between them to italics.) const type pointer const is a const pointer to a const object, i.e. the pointer itself can't be mutated to point to a different object. I've never found a need for it. I usually don't care if the pointer itself is modified, particularly since such modifications are usually local and obvious.

zaphar 16y ago

Perhaps the point is that C++ is heavy and if there are alternatives you should use them instead. Just because you invested years getting up to speed doesn't mean everyone else should do the same. I have to use C++ at work occasionally so I'll probably end up having a few years invested in getting to know C++ too. But at this stage the startup cost is considerable and very very present. If I had a choice I wouldn't consider it a good value.

danieldk 16y ago
In the standard C++ world, yes. However, if you use a rich class library, such as Qt, there is not all that much difference in difficulty compared to e.g. Java (even down to Java-style iterators).

yonilevy 16y ago

The template error messages part has been improved quite a bit in clang (LLVM's standard front-end) in comparison to gcc. If you haven't already, give it a try.

pietrofmaggi 16y ago
CLang Error recovery works like magics: http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/amazing-feats-of-clang-error-recovery.html http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/amazing-feats-of-clang-error-re...

keeptrying 16y ago

I've been using C++ for the last 6 years. Recently I moved to the web group which uses ruby and seriously, I never want to code another line of C++ ever. I dont feel that way about C though and its probably because of C++'s immense complexity. If everyone on your team has 7+ years of using C++ and most of its features on a day to day basis then I think you have a chance (however remote) of getting a clean maintainable system. If not you get a good ugly mess. (And yes I've created a few myself, while learning this language :)

codingthewheel 16y ago
Do you really think this is a fair comparison? Web dev has never been C++'s strong point. I could as well say, "so, I've been using Haskell for desktop and console gaming. After 6 years, I moved to C++ and man, I never want to code a line of Haskell again." Because it's a completely inappropriate language choice. Also re: maintainability. C++ is completely maintainable, and built from the ground up for maintainability specifically in large projects. Don't blame C++ for the sins of Microsoft (managed C++ extensions, DLL HEll, C++ COM interfaces, compiler support classes, 9 different string types). Don't blame C++ for the sins of gcc. At some point we need to distinguish between the (pure) LANGUAGE and the (often politically motivated) TOOLSET.
- zokier 16y ago
  I don't think actually that C++ as a language is a inappropriate for web dev, but it lacks the great frameworks that more popular choices have (RoR, Django etc).
  - codingthewheel 16y ago
    Agreed. There is no really good web framework for C++. This is a weakness of C++ going forward. I suppose you could do ASP.NET or ASP.NET MVC with C++/CLI...though in that case it would seem C# or VB.NET is indicated...
  - danieldk 16y ago
    I am not sure, a lot of convenience of modern web frameworks is made possible using introspection and other runtime facilities, which are too minimal in C++.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

mrvir 16y ago

One man project with 25 KLOC? A bit limited example IMO. No problem with C++ strings if you don't use 'em. Well, that's a solution ...

16s 16y ago

boost has a nice threading library too. He didn't mention that when listing other portable threading alternatives and I think the boost implementation will be in the next standard.

forkandwait 16y ago

Folks often poo-poo Apple's choice of Objective C, but I find that a VERY graceful object oriented extension of C, and far nicer than C++ or Java (yuck!).

thought_alarm 16y ago
I did GUI development in C++ for a number of years, and it really boggles the mind just how much more suitable Objective-C is for high-level application design than C++/COM, and without the overhead of a VM. C++ has its place, but that place is getting smaller and smaller each day, making the advanced features of C++ all the more irrelevant.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

d0m 16y ago

I find this post to be a little bit like saying: "Why running with one leg is great" - written by someone who run each days with one leg. Of course, if you're using C++ each days of your life, you become quite good at it. You know the downside, you learn to use external libraries, etc. However, it's when you actually switch to another language that you can look behind realize all the time and effort you lost. It's when you actually start running with 2 legs that you know for sure that, yes maybe one leg is ok, but 2 legs is easier, simpler, faster and safer. Oh, some says it's better to use a car, well, I don't care because 2 legs is ok for me. [to be completed]

ramchip 16y ago
> Of course, if you're using C++ each days of your life, you become quite good at it. You know the downside, you learn to use external libraries, etc. However, it's when you actually switch to another language that you can look behind realize all the time and effort you lost. I work on a real-time visualization application for microscopes. Main requirements: 1) Performance (DSP and image processing involved) 2) Decent GUI 3) Must be maintainable by students in engineering physics What I am supposed to use that's easier, simpler, faster and safer than C++/Qt for this? Even dropping the "maintainable" thing, I don't see any language that would let me code faster. And my app doesn't have very unusual requirements...
- d0m 16y ago
  The fact that you are forced to use C++ for all the reasons you said doesn't make it a better language. Again, to continue my comparison with legs: If you lose one of your shoes and need to walk in the street, you might be better to jump with only one leg.. it doesn't make it better than 2 legs. In the same way, if you needed raw performance, need to control your memory, etc. C++ might be the only way to go. However, for your particular problem, I don't know if it's possible, but a mix of Python for GUI and C for the raw algorithm could have been easier. And, for students in engineering physics, Python is way simpler than C++. From my experience, I helped students in other concentration than computer at university, and they had all kind of: #include <iostream.h>, lots of global variable named with only one letter, etc.. in their code. But don't get me wrong, C++ has its use and I keep using it again and again for various project. I know however that when I can use other language such as python, I'm way more effective and the final code is really prettier and simpler. Sadly, as in everything in life, nothing is black or white.. if C++ fits you well for a project, uses it. It's nobody's business anyway. I think it's important however to know that if you only use and know C++, you miss something.

known 16y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B#Criticism

tmsh 16y ago

What's wrong with C++ can ironically be summed up by how a C++ (or C) compiler would parse 'C++'. If the value of C++ were accessed at that line, a temporary would be generated to access the original C value, and then after the line C would be incremented. The idea is that most other languages are ++C. or ++A. The operation isn't straddled across two lines. Backwards compatibility with another language (C) isn't so important. And all the language features aren't generated implicitly without a real clear idea about the design (i.e., via temporaries). On the other hand, it is possible to program in something like ++C -- no temporaries -- by consciously going through and picking which features you like in C++, and not waiting for them to influence your design in some weird way (hence these types of posts about C++, and how different programmers have different takes on the language -- and different tools, moc, etc.). That is, if you want to write really elegant C++ code, you have to write it with a vengeance. It's not orthogonal really like Python or Ruby. It's much more like Perl. Just as the compiler is generating unnecessary cycles by creating that temporary (9/10), so are the C++ design paradigms often very overlapping and if you're not careful and don't understand them in detail -- they'll create a lot of unnecessary design cycles. But I think with the right tools and the right focused perspective, it's still one of the best languages. It's not forgiving -- and sometimes it's almost misleading -- I mean from the very beginning, you'd think if you wanted simply to increment an integer or an object semantically you'd just foo++ -- but that'd usually be wrong. But the redeeming part about C++ is that all languages make these mistakes. All languages, in trying to improve on their predecessors, make limiting choices that are imperfect and at some point will be optimized or revised in the future. The beauty, if you can call it that, of C++ -- is that because of its performance bent, it doesn't force you to choose any of its features which aren't already in C.

jhg 16y ago

With regards to the const part of the discussion - Does anyone knows any research or even a state of affairs of const inference in language design? The idea is similar to type inference whereby a compiler (or some other tool in a chain) would take care of understanding which arguments/variables/functions are going to be const and generate appropriate warnings based on that. For example, void foo(int * a) { (*a)++; } void bar(int * b) { foo(b); } void baz(const int * c) { bar(c); } A compiler would generate a warning when baz function, because foo() includes a non-const operation on its argument, bar() is non-const for the same reason, and so it cannot be called for a const pointer.

jpr 16y ago
I'm not sure what you mean, since current compilers already warn if you write that code.
- jhg 16y ago
  Hmm, OK. Try a different example - the compiler should allow the following code without any warnings: void foo(int * a) { } void bar(int * b) { foo(b); } void baz(const int * c) { bar(c); } Point being is that the compiler should warn of the const violation based on whether a function argument or a class member is getting touched in the function code. In fact, the example above is more relevant, because what I am ultimately aiming for is to not need to make member functions const, and yet be able to call them for const class instances.

emerson_clarke 16y ago

I just put a similar response in another post, but its just as appropriate here... If you want to know how C++ can be better, you should take a look at at the Reason C++ framwork, especially if you have never seen C++ in its most pure uncomplicated OO form. http://reasoning.info http://reasoning.info Reason is a C++ framework that ive been writing for about 8 years, which aleviates many of the sources of pain highlighted in this discussion. Writing code with Reason is much more like using a dynamic language, with a full library like Java or .Net. It supports raii, but doesnt use exception handling and doesnt bother with const nonsense or over the top inheritance restrictions. In fact pretty much everything in Reason is public and designed to be derived, modified or enhanced. It has generic programming features, but doesnt force you to write everything as templates (a classic mistake that the standard library makes). For example, you can have an iterator of int's without caring what the underlying container type is, so your code and algorithms can actually be generic, not just infectious templates. Unlike a lot of C++ frameworks and libraries, its not specifically focused on networking, or a few esoteric template classes or collection libraries. Reason is a fully featured systems programming framework with a complete interface to all the usual posix api's and everything else you would expect from a modern language. It has strings, regexes, streams, parsers, sockets, threads, filesystem, encryption, encoding, xml, xpath, collections, time and date, sql (mysql, postgress, sqlite), http (client/server), smart pointers, formatting, logging, and much more. But the features are perhaps not as important as how it is written. It is simple, and very object oriented, everything is designed to work togeather cleanly and obey the principle of least surprise. Just like Python and Ruby, Reason allows you to do a lot in a very small amount of code. So if your wondering how you can have the simplicity of C, with just the good parts of C++, heres your answer. http://reasoning.info http://reasoning.info