4 ms·
Firstly, half of the time the guy bitches about flaws with the compiler, and not the languages (Page 0 to 6). Most of the bitching is about language features w
by thedigitalengel 15y ago
Firstly, half of the time the guy bitches about flaws with the compiler, and not the languages (Page 0 to 6).
Most of the bitching is about language features which exist. If you don't like auto_ptr then DON'T use auto_ptr! C++ at least allows you to ignore features without paying a penalty. Which is why it has a virtual keyword; and does not make every method virtual like Java.
The at() versus operator[] is also an example of the above: bounds checking can get expensive in a tight loop.
It seems that the author has never seen a large, well-written C++ project. In fact, that is the case with many such C++ bashers (I used to be one too). Once one sees how C++ makes it easy to manage a 500000 line project, they will probably think again.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Raphael_Amiard 15y ago> Firstly, half of the time the guy bitches about flaws with the compiler, and not the languages (Page 0 to 6). That's pretty unfair. It's the language's complexity that makes the compiler task almost impossible. Before clang came around, most C++ compilers had really shitty error messages, gcc, icc, and microsoft's indiscriminately.
- thedigitalengel 15y agoWhat I meant was that unless you're writing a C++ compiler, these reasons should not longer bother you. Even if you are, you're free to leverage off clang's lexer and parser. Otherwise it is a lot like saying Java is bad because it is hard to write a good VM.
- KonradKlause 15y ago> It seems that the author has never seen a large, well-written C++ project. I doubt that, I suggest search a bit for his name and find out what he is doing for a living...
- thedigitalengel 15y agoThat was an uninformed ad-hominem from my side. My bad, I apologize.