2 ms·
The quoted site explains in depth the words "defective", "complicated" or "unhelpful" (and about STL being high-level too). I've posted a short outline to prov
by d0mine 18y ago
The quoted site explains in depth the words "defective", "complicated" or "unhelpful" (and about STL being high-level too).
I've posted a short outline to provide a context for the link. It is easy to read and the critique it provides is worth reading by any C++ programmer.
Do not believe my words, just try to read it and see for yourself.
EDIT: I want to make it clear. C++ is a valuable tool for some tasks. But.. No size fits all. And knowing the weaknesses of the tool at hand does not hurt either.
- timr 18y agoYes, I've read the site before. I don't have the time or inclination to rebut every point that he makes, but many of his criticisms boil down to the fact that he just doesn't like the complexity of C++ (which is fair, but it's still just his opinion.) The "high-level" criticism, in particular, quickly devolves into a complaint about the complexity of template generics, and how the error messages emitted by current C++ compilers are cryptic. It's unclear what his solution to the problem would be, short of a fully dynamic type system.