3 ms·

Its clear that C++ is very popular, and a lot of people chose to use it, for better or for worse. I'd like to hear your thoughts referencing specific issues you

Its clear that C++ is very popular, and a lot of people chose to use it, for better or for worse. I'd like to hear your thoughts referencing specific issues you have w.r.t. the language (not libraries). As it stands, I'll take your comment as a passionate plea :)

saagarjha 6y ago
I’m not sure if you meant it, but your comment comes off as being in exceptionally bad faith. Of course C++ is a popular language and people put up with the decisions ISO makes-that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have issues. The distinction between “the language” and “libraries that ship with the language” is not useful but even if it was the comment presents initialization a wart in the core language.
- passivate 6y ago
  >The distinction between “the language” and “libraries that ship with the language” is not useful but even if it was the comment presents initialization a wart in the core language. I think it is extremely useful, as the standard library is easily (and often) replaced. We have a difference of opinion, and that is perfectly fine, but please do realize that this doesn't mean my comment is in bad faith. Every library has a goal, and the standard library's goal is not to serve as a industry-ready plug-in for high-performance code. Writing high-performance code in C++ is an advanced task that necessitates more control, which makes the standard library not a good fit. The model of (language) + (library) makes it easy for the end user to pick a library of their choice, for their application. >comment presents initialization a wart in the core language. Okay, that is one point. When people say "X sucks" or "X is horrible" there is very little a reader can gain out of that. If a person's opinion is formed by deep experience with that X, then I am interested in knowing specifics that lead to that opinion.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    The distinction is useful in the context of a discussion about alternative standard libraries, but in the context of the ISO working group that does the design for both it is not. I understand that you intention was to get more information, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that responding to someone who is listing out their complaints with what is essentially "a bunch of people use the language productively, can you please give me information that you just went over, otherwise I am going to disregard your comment" can be interpreted as bad faith because it's a common troll/asymmetric effort tactic.
    - passivate 6y ago
      Thanks. I'll try to better phrase my comments so as to avoid misinterpretations :)

saagarjha 6y ago

I’m not sure if you meant it, but your comment comes off as being in exceptionally bad faith. Of course C++ is a popular language and people put up with the decisions ISO makes-that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have issues. The distinction between “the language” and “libraries that ship with the language” is not useful but even if it was the comment presents initialization a wart in the core language.

passivate 6y ago
>The distinction between “the language” and “libraries that ship with the language” is not useful but even if it was the comment presents initialization a wart in the core language. I think it is extremely useful, as the standard library is easily (and often) replaced. We have a difference of opinion, and that is perfectly fine, but please do realize that this doesn't mean my comment is in bad faith. Every library has a goal, and the standard library's goal is not to serve as a industry-ready plug-in for high-performance code. Writing high-performance code in C++ is an advanced task that necessitates more control, which makes the standard library not a good fit. The model of (language) + (library) makes it easy for the end user to pick a library of their choice, for their application. >comment presents initialization a wart in the core language. Okay, that is one point. When people say "X sucks" or "X is horrible" there is very little a reader can gain out of that. If a person's opinion is formed by deep experience with that X, then I am interested in knowing specifics that lead to that opinion.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  The distinction is useful in the context of a discussion about alternative standard libraries, but in the context of the ISO working group that does the design for both it is not. I understand that you intention was to get more information, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that responding to someone who is listing out their complaints with what is essentially "a bunch of people use the language productively, can you please give me information that you just went over, otherwise I am going to disregard your comment" can be interpreted as bad faith because it's a common troll/asymmetric effort tactic.
  - passivate 6y ago
    Thanks. I'll try to better phrase my comments so as to avoid misinterpretations :)