4 ms·
Totally agree with the author. I have started coding again in C++ after a 10 year detour to python. Can we have basics first, and then robust libraries for say
by periram 9y ago
Totally agree with the author.
I have started coding again in C++ after a 10 year detour to python.
Can we have basics first, and then robust libraries for say, as simple as networking.
Batteries included, is a thing, and is something a lot of programmers like me look for when choosing between languages.
- sseagull 9y agoUnfortunately, I have already heard complaints about the size of the C++ standard library, and how "I can write a better vector/list/etc.. class". I can't imagine what people would think of a networking module, designed by committee and full of compromises. I don't envy the members of the standards committee. It is a hard and very thankless job.
- colanderman 9y agoI've been a hardcore C programmer for decades and just got into C++11 this past year. I LIKE the standard library.† It's pretty much just basic data layout stuff that I've done 100 times manually in C, nothing more, nothing less. Leave the complicated data structures and libraries to 3rd parties. std::vector is already exactly what I want (though it could do with one fewer specialization ;). There's pretty much one way to implement it and they got it right. On the other hand, there's 100 ways to implement, say, an HTTP client, and they're all wrong. † Except for iostreams. Ugh.