3 ms·

well, that's just like, your opinion, man ( big lebowski reference for those too young to know ). The reason I disagree with you is because I have never met a

well, that's just like, your opinion, man ( big lebowski reference for those too young to know ). The reason I disagree with you is because I have never met a C++ programmer who only knew C++ and couldn't easily do work in some other language, but of course plenty of people know other languages and can't do C++. Yes, SFINAE and RAII - you can go for many years of working in C++ without writing much code using either one of those.

jungler 8y ago
That is more like an example of Blub paradox in action: You can write in everything as if it were C, you can't write C as if it were everything else. Except that it makes a point that is subtly different from the one pg originally raised in discussing Blub paradox: If you only care about shipping something, you aren't inclined to think about abstraction as a goal state, and that's what these other languages are doing: handling things with a goal of adding abstraction that for a C++ user is out of reach or requires considerable knowledge of the C++ standard. Users of Python or JS don't know what a pointer is, and that's intended by design, because for most applications it is an implementation detail and automating it away is desirable. When most software was written in assembler, data structures more complex than an array were often avoided, because it was difficult to code and debug them. And if you were an assembly coder of that era, you might well say that you didn't see the point of structured programming, or that you could easily get the same effect in fewer bytes. And to some degree, you'd be right, because you would just design a smaller scope of application that makes those techniques viable. Trying to write something resembling modern C++ style in x86 assembly, in contrast, would be as fruitless as a JS coder trying to use C++ like JS, since your abstractions wouldn't be there. You'd have to learn the thought process of a lower level coder and apply those strategies instead of the ones you are comfortable with.
zvrba 8y ago
> Yes, SFINAE and RAII - you can go for many years of working in C++ without writing much code using either one of those. WTF, RAII is the corner-stone of C++ development. And I miss it (deterministic destruction) in every other language I use. These days I use C# in parallel with C++, C# has using statement, but it relies on IDisposable, and IDisposable itself is a kludge (just look at guidelines on how to implement it "properly").
lmm 8y ago
> I have never met a C++ programmer who only knew C++ and couldn't easily do work in some other language Did they try the languages I mentioned? C++-trained programmers might be able to write lowest-common-denominator code in other languages but they'll struggle to write effective, idiomatic code in languages that make significant use of pattern matching/sum types or polymorphism, or rely on extensive use of higher-order functions. > but of course plenty of people know other languages and can't do C++. I'd agree that C++ programmers can usually write Java/Python, Java programmers can usually write Python but not C++, and Python programmers can usually write Java but not C++. But the implication is not that C++ is more general than Java or Python but just the opposite: programming in C++ requires learning a lot of C++-specific stuff that programmers in those other languages don't bother with.

jungler 8y ago

That is more like an example of Blub paradox in action: You can write in everything as if it were C, you can't write C as if it were everything else. Except that it makes a point that is subtly different from the one pg originally raised in discussing Blub paradox: If you only care about shipping something, you aren't inclined to think about abstraction as a goal state, and that's what these other languages are doing: handling things with a goal of adding abstraction that for a C++ user is out of reach or requires considerable knowledge of the C++ standard. Users of Python or JS don't know what a pointer is, and that's intended by design, because for most applications it is an implementation detail and automating it away is desirable. When most software was written in assembler, data structures more complex than an array were often avoided, because it was difficult to code and debug them. And if you were an assembly coder of that era, you might well say that you didn't see the point of structured programming, or that you could easily get the same effect in fewer bytes. And to some degree, you'd be right, because you would just design a smaller scope of application that makes those techniques viable. Trying to write something resembling modern C++ style in x86 assembly, in contrast, would be as fruitless as a JS coder trying to use C++ like JS, since your abstractions wouldn't be there. You'd have to learn the thought process of a lower level coder and apply those strategies instead of the ones you are comfortable with.

zvrba 8y ago

> Yes, SFINAE and RAII - you can go for many years of working in C++ without writing much code using either one of those. WTF, RAII is the corner-stone of C++ development. And I miss it (deterministic destruction) in every other language I use. These days I use C# in parallel with C++, C# has using statement, but it relies on IDisposable, and IDisposable itself is a kludge (just look at guidelines on how to implement it "properly").

lmm 8y ago

> I have never met a C++ programmer who only knew C++ and couldn't easily do work in some other language Did they try the languages I mentioned? C++-trained programmers might be able to write lowest-common-denominator code in other languages but they'll struggle to write effective, idiomatic code in languages that make significant use of pattern matching/sum types or polymorphism, or rely on extensive use of higher-order functions. > but of course plenty of people know other languages and can't do C++. I'd agree that C++ programmers can usually write Java/Python, Java programmers can usually write Python but not C++, and Python programmers can usually write Java but not C++. But the implication is not that C++ is more general than Java or Python but just the opposite: programming in C++ requires learning a lot of C++-specific stuff that programmers in those other languages don't bother with.