4 ms·
Oddly, this does not apply to C++ which has been steadily growing and growing in features, yet gets criticized for being "too complicated". Of course, you can
by 72deluxe 9y ago
Oddly, this does not apply to C++ which has been steadily growing and growing in features, yet gets criticized for being "too complicated".
Of course, you can get by knowing only the bits you need, and Stroustrup makes the excellent points in his hopl-almost-final PDF that newer languages are easier to "get into" because they haven't had years of having new features bolted on, hence they appear "simpler". A few decades down the line and they'll be in the same position.
- fusiongyro 9y agoI want to agree, but C is even older than C++ and is definitely not in the same position. Ultimately, each language is different and the way they grow is different. C++ has just never been all that conservative about admitting new features. Their primary concern seems to have been the effect on the runtime performance of the binary, not whether the feature makes sense or mixes well with the existing features, or the effect on compilation time.
- 72deluxe 9y agoThis is very true. As I sit here waiting for my compilation to finish, I am reminded of the "speed" of compilation.