3 ms·

It's certainly possible to see it this way. However, I'd like to argue that there is a certain kind of value to what you consider a problem as well. Quoting Bja

It's certainly possible to see it this way. However, I'd like to argue that there is a certain kind of value to what you consider a problem as well. Quoting Bjarne from the article: > “But besides adding object orientation to C, he also remembered his earliest design goals for C++. “I wanted very great freedom of expression, very great generality. [...]” I can only speak from my own experience here, so it's anecdotal, but the main reason I love using C++ is precisely this "great freedom of expression", which is most likely, but at least in part, a direct consequence of the fact that it "tries to be everything to everyone". When writing C++, my mind often wanders and comes up with code and designs that would either be actively discouraged in the majority of other (opinionated) programming languages, or straight up impossible to implement. It's a great and highly valuable (possibly creative) experience that I haven't, to this extent, experienced in any of the other (numerous) languages I've been using. I also feel it makes me a better software engineer as a whole, even when I'm not working with C++ (which is actually most of the time). Beyond that, I also feel it's one of the reasons why C++ is so successful. Obviously it also leads to the fragmentation you described, and it's perfectly valid to criticize, but I wish people would, more often, at least acknowledge that this kind of programming language is still valuable in certain ways and situations. Yes, if you are mainly focused on getting a job done with minimum friction (and maybe maximum speed), there is a high chance that there is a language better suited for the task than C++ in today's age. That does not make C++ obsolete, quite the opposite in my opinion. I believe the fact that C++ isn't as opinionated or streamlined as other languages shouldn't be considered an "issue" or a "problem", but a feature.

zelphirkalt 6y ago
That great freedom in expression is probably what leads to many bugs from expressing things "too freely". Generic wise phrase: Perfection is not reached by adding more and more things, but by taking things away, until only the true core ideas remain, on top of which one builds the rest. This is something C++ is very far away from attaining. What one wants for maintainabIlity, simplicity and understandability is the core concepts, not 120 keywords and different meanings of keywords depending on where they appear.
- foxtacles 6y ago
  > "That great freedom in expression is probably what leads to many bugs from expressing things "too freely". I agree. I'm not sure why C++ needs to attain perfection of this specific kind - or any kind, for that matter. You could also argue that the great freedom and flexiblity were preconditions for (or at least greatly aided in) the creation of languages like Rust. Through them, people learned what to be aware of; and were thus capable of "distilling" this knowledge into such languages. My point is: there is nothing inherently wrong with a language choosing to be liberal/maximum generality, allowing for a playground on which new ideas and learnings can happen. I consider C++ to be of that kind, it has served this purpose for a long time in my opinion. Don't get me wrong though, I'm perfectly aware of all the issues that come with it, and I'd not advocate C++ as the language of choice for the majority of software nowadays. I reject the idea though that C++ should now be considered obsolete, redundant, or anything that goes into that direction just because some people now believe to have found some kind of (final) "perfection" in new languages.

zelphirkalt 6y ago

That great freedom in expression is probably what leads to many bugs from expressing things "too freely". Generic wise phrase: Perfection is not reached by adding more and more things, but by taking things away, until only the true core ideas remain, on top of which one builds the rest. This is something C++ is very far away from attaining. What one wants for maintainabIlity, simplicity and understandability is the core concepts, not 120 keywords and different meanings of keywords depending on where they appear.

foxtacles 6y ago
> "That great freedom in expression is probably what leads to many bugs from expressing things "too freely". I agree. I'm not sure why C++ needs to attain perfection of this specific kind - or any kind, for that matter. You could also argue that the great freedom and flexiblity were preconditions for (or at least greatly aided in) the creation of languages like Rust. Through them, people learned what to be aware of; and were thus capable of "distilling" this knowledge into such languages. My point is: there is nothing inherently wrong with a language choosing to be liberal/maximum generality, allowing for a playground on which new ideas and learnings can happen. I consider C++ to be of that kind, it has served this purpose for a long time in my opinion. Don't get me wrong though, I'm perfectly aware of all the issues that come with it, and I'd not advocate C++ as the language of choice for the majority of software nowadays. I reject the idea though that C++ should now be considered obsolete, redundant, or anything that goes into that direction just because some people now believe to have found some kind of (final) "perfection" in new languages.