3 ms·

>that C is superior to full-blown C++ Couldn't disagree more. C++ has a much better type system than C. For many C++ programmers (myself among them) C++ was

by danssig 16y ago

>that C is superior to full-blown C++ Couldn't disagree more. C++ has a much better type system than C. For many C++ programmers (myself among them) C++ was less about OO and more about giving C programmers the ability to create new types that have the powers of the built in types. I can have strings with proper string schematics instead of an array of chars that is null terminated by convention (i.e. can't be type enforced).

Peaker 16y ago
That's indeed a great feature of C++. And there are more great features (auto-destructors/RAII, better "const", parameterized types). But I find other features/interactions in C++ are unnecessary and even harmful (inheritance and virtuals, typedef of references, C++'s useless implementation of checked exceptions). Templates are implemented pretty badly (Haskell's type-classes a.k.a the discarded "Concepts" could have been used to reduce the auto-generated code duplication). The "rule of three" (Copy constructors, assignment, destructors) is not enforced by the compiler and is a great error-prone hole. C++ exceptions are problematic, and I actually prefer C's lack of mechanism, where it is completely clear (as long as nobody uses "longjmp") what the control flow is, from simple static analysis or code review. In C++, you have to keep all of the code exception-safe, but due to interaction with external libraries, it can be tough and even error-prone. Cleanup order is sometimes very important and also implicit when using exceptions, making review of its correctness much harder.
- danssig 16y ago
  Good points. I would say that it's better to have too much, so long as I can ignore the bad parts (e.g. checked exceptions) than not enough as in C. I also disagree about exceptions. It does make control flow trickier to follow, but the problem with C is that to really have all failure cases covered you have to put every single function in an if statement. Anything and everything can fail.
  - Peaker 16y ago
    > Anything and everything can fail. In my experience this is only true until you switch to a style where memory allocations (which are used in "anything and everything") are given to functions as arguments (from the top) rather than via malloc or such. When allocations are given as arguments, the main reason for errors/failures disappears and a blissful ripple effect of failure-returning -> void-returning functions usually results.

by danssig 16y ago

Peaker 16y ago

That's indeed a great feature of C++. And there are more great features (auto-destructors/RAII, better "const", parameterized types). But I find other features/interactions in C++ are unnecessary and even harmful (inheritance and virtuals, typedef of references, C++'s useless implementation of checked exceptions). Templates are implemented pretty badly (Haskell's type-classes a.k.a the discarded "Concepts" could have been used to reduce the auto-generated code duplication). The "rule of three" (Copy constructors, assignment, destructors) is not enforced by the compiler and is a great error-prone hole. C++ exceptions are problematic, and I actually prefer C's lack of mechanism, where it is completely clear (as long as nobody uses "longjmp") what the control flow is, from simple static analysis or code review. In C++, you have to keep all of the code exception-safe, but due to interaction with external libraries, it can be tough and even error-prone. Cleanup order is sometimes very important and also implicit when using exceptions, making review of its correctness much harder.

danssig 16y ago
Good points. I would say that it's better to have too much, so long as I can ignore the bad parts (e.g. checked exceptions) than not enough as in C. I also disagree about exceptions. It does make control flow trickier to follow, but the problem with C is that to really have all failure cases covered you have to put every single function in an if statement. Anything and everything can fail.
- Peaker 16y ago
  > Anything and everything can fail. In my experience this is only true until you switch to a style where memory allocations (which are used in "anything and everything") are given to functions as arguments (from the top) rather than via malloc or such. When allocations are given as arguments, the main reason for errors/failures disappears and a blissful ripple effect of failure-returning -> void-returning functions usually results.