3 ms·

I've tended to like C++ as a user-space programming language, but I also tend to agree that its completely jumped the shark in the past decade. The current trop

I've tended to like C++ as a user-space programming language, but I also tend to agree that its completely jumped the shark in the past decade. The current trope of "modern C++" programmers seem like the modern equivalent of the "pure OOP" crowd that infected C++ in the late 1990 early 2000's. The difference being that the modern C++ people have created what is pretty much worse in class syntax messes as they have tried to bolt concepts on using the template syntax. The shared_ptr<>/make_unique<> etc syntax is mostly nonsensical to anyone who isn't willing to buy into the cult. I'm really wishing those people had forked the language into C+++ or something so they could have actually deprecated all the syntax they hate and replaced it with what they believe to be the one true path, leaving the core C++ language mostly static, and fixing only the most critical of issues (as is C).

SaxonRobber 7y ago
For this reason I went back to C and have been experimenting with Rust. It’s a shame, because there are some places where C++ is a strict improvement over C, but you have to accept so much more baggage.
userbinator 7y ago
The current trope of "modern C++" programmers seem like the modern equivalent of the "pure OOP" crowd that infected C++ in the late 1990 early 2000's. Precisely. Whereas the latter debate and complain about whether code is "OOP or not", and think non-OOP is a "bad practice", now we have the same contention around whether code is "pure C++" and dogma that "C with classes" is to be avoided. Hopefully the latter group will also eventually realise the silliness of it all. I personally use C++ as "C with some extra features" and try to avoid most of the template insanity.
lalaland1125 7y ago
> The shared_ptr<>/make_unique<> etc syntax is mostly nonsensical to anyone who isn't willing to buy into the cult. Could you explain how you would improve the shared_ptr syntax? I'm not sure you could make it that much simpler. std::shared_ptr<Something> seems pretty clear to me.

SaxonRobber 7y ago

For this reason I went back to C and have been experimenting with Rust. It’s a shame, because there are some places where C++ is a strict improvement over C, but you have to accept so much more baggage.

userbinator 7y ago

The current trope of "modern C++" programmers seem like the modern equivalent of the "pure OOP" crowd that infected C++ in the late 1990 early 2000's. Precisely. Whereas the latter debate and complain about whether code is "OOP or not", and think non-OOP is a "bad practice", now we have the same contention around whether code is "pure C++" and dogma that "C with classes" is to be avoided. Hopefully the latter group will also eventually realise the silliness of it all. I personally use C++ as "C with some extra features" and try to avoid most of the template insanity.

lalaland1125 7y ago

> The shared_ptr<>/make_unique<> etc syntax is mostly nonsensical to anyone who isn't willing to buy into the cult. Could you explain how you would improve the shared_ptr syntax? I'm not sure you could make it that much simpler. std::shared_ptr<Something> seems pretty clear to me.