10 ms·

> A language either cares about low level details or not. You can’t have it both ways. And c++ is absolutely a low level language. Please tell me why you can't

> A language either cares about low level details or not. You can’t have it both ways. And c++ is absolutely a low level language. Please tell me why you can't. C++ is both not one. It's a multi paradigm language. In Modern C++, the low level details invisible. > Every memory allocation/deallocation have to be thought out again and tested True If you're writing C with Classes or Java Style C++. >> C with Classes >>> malloc() >> Java Style C++ >>> new and delete everywhere > There are plenty of cases where you can’t really pinpoint a scope-exit where this given object should be reclaimed. Show me. I'd bet your case can be solved with xvalues. > A GC is a necessity in many concurrent algorithms that simply could not be written without. Show me a concurrent algorithm that needs GC. > but what if the requirement has changed now touching on a core of your program. C++ is a OOP language just like Java. You do it same way as you do in Java. Use inheritance. > major refactor as it is another low level lang No. It's not a low level language if you write Modern C++. The case for Java very clear prior 2011 but now C++ has caught up.

kaba0 5y ago
> It's a multi paradigm language. Being multi-paradigm is a different axis all around. Low-level (which is by the way not a well-defined concept, C is actually also high level, only assembly is low, but that usage is not that useful) means that low level details leak into your high level description of code, making the two coupled. You can’t make them invisible. Also, as an example, think of Qt. A widget’s lifetime is absolutely not scope-based, nor is it living throughout the whole program. You have to explicitly destruct it somewhere. And there are plenty of other examples. And as I said, I’m familiar with RAII, it’s really great when the given object is scope-based, but can’t do anything otherwise. > C++ is a OOP language just like Java. You do it same way as you do in Java. Use inheritance. And if the new subclass has some non-standard object life cycle you HAVE to handle that case somewhere else, modifying another aspect of the code. It is not invisible, unless you want leaking code/memory corruption.
- v8dev123 5y ago
  > low level details leak into your high level description of code, making the two coupled. You can’t make them invisible. It's your job to make it not to leak. You have to write Modern C++ wrappers around C libs. Similarity, The same can be said for Java. You can do low level in Java. C++ is not C. C++ has backward compatibility with C. Look at Boost folks, they wrote a Modern C++ wrapper around a C HTTP parser. > And as I said, I’m familiar with RAII, it’s really great when the given object is scope-based, but can’t do anything otherwise. Nothing is impossible. You can use Scope Exit Guard with QT Widget. https://github.com/ricab/scope_guard https://github.com/ricab/scope_guard > And if the new subclass has some non-standard object life cycle you HAVE to handle that case somewhere else, modifying another aspect of the code. It is not invisible, unless you want leaking code/memory corruption. Again, Scope Exit Guards solve your problem!

kaba0 5y ago

> It's a multi paradigm language. Being multi-paradigm is a different axis all around. Low-level (which is by the way not a well-defined concept, C is actually also high level, only assembly is low, but that usage is not that useful) means that low level details leak into your high level description of code, making the two coupled. You can’t make them invisible. Also, as an example, think of Qt. A widget’s lifetime is absolutely not scope-based, nor is it living throughout the whole program. You have to explicitly destruct it somewhere. And there are plenty of other examples. And as I said, I’m familiar with RAII, it’s really great when the given object is scope-based, but can’t do anything otherwise. > C++ is a OOP language just like Java. You do it same way as you do in Java. Use inheritance. And if the new subclass has some non-standard object life cycle you HAVE to handle that case somewhere else, modifying another aspect of the code. It is not invisible, unless you want leaking code/memory corruption.

v8dev123 5y ago
> low level details leak into your high level description of code, making the two coupled. You can’t make them invisible. It's your job to make it not to leak. You have to write Modern C++ wrappers around C libs. Similarity, The same can be said for Java. You can do low level in Java. C++ is not C. C++ has backward compatibility with C. Look at Boost folks, they wrote a Modern C++ wrapper around a C HTTP parser. > And as I said, I’m familiar with RAII, it’s really great when the given object is scope-based, but can’t do anything otherwise. Nothing is impossible. You can use Scope Exit Guard with QT Widget. https://github.com/ricab/scope_guard https://github.com/ricab/scope_guard > And if the new subclass has some non-standard object life cycle you HAVE to handle that case somewhere else, modifying another aspect of the code. It is not invisible, unless you want leaking code/memory corruption. Again, Scope Exit Guards solve your problem!