4 ms·

I don't think Python and C++ are really comparable here. Python was meant to be fairly minimalist from the start. I think if Python "feature froze" right now it

by simias 5y ago

I don't think Python and C++ are really comparable here. Python was meant to be fairly minimalist from the start. I think if Python "feature froze" right now it'd still remain relevant for a long time. As you mention for its core use case you could argue that it's feature-complete already. C++ on the other hand was never small. It was never an objective. C++ started as C with classes so it was really just a way to have proper OOP in C. Then it grew and grew and grew, adding more paradigms along the way. C++ is in a relatively tough spot because it has to maintain backward compatibility all the way back to C89 while at the same time attempt to stay relevant when pitted against Rust, Zig, D and friends. You can't simplify anything because you'd lose backcompat and if you just feature freeze you're doomed to become irrelevant in the not-so-far future. Unlike Python you can't really argue that C++ as it is now is feature complete. Dependency management is still a nightmare (as is the entire build system really, given that you don't have any standard C++ build system). Concepts are also a great addition to the language IMO that I've been missing for as long as I've used the language. Coroutines are also fast becoming a standard tool for system programming (for better or worse, but that's a different discussion), and C++'s support in the standard is still experimental.

tsimionescu 5y ago
> C++ is in a relatively tough spot because it has to maintain backward compatibility all the way back to C89 C++ does not maintain backwards compatibility with any version of C. Almost any relatively large idiomatic C program will fail when compiled as C++ for a few simple differences (most commonly, in C it is idiomatic to write `int *c = malloc(sizeof(int))`, while this is a type error in C++).
pjmlp 5y ago
Except Python is quite huge as well, and introduces breaking changes even across minor versions, people think it is simple, but that is actually quite deceiving.
frakt0x90 5y ago
I don't think that's true at all for Python. It's explicitly created as a "batteries included" language with a very large standard library. This is a quote from PEP 206: "The Python source distribution has long maintained the philosophy of "batteries included" -- having a rich and versatile standard library which is immediately available, without making the user download separate packages."
ehvatum 5y ago
> Dependency management is still a nightmare (as is the entire build system really, given that you don't have any standard C++ build system) CMake sucks but it’s OK that CMake quickly became so dominant, because at least it’s everywhere. It’s also peculiar, unhelpful, and dangerous in the same sort of general way as C++. So, I find CMake to be very comfortable, and I like it, and I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if Bjarne announced one day that CMake is now the standard C++ build system.

by simias 5y ago

tsimionescu 5y ago

> C++ is in a relatively tough spot because it has to maintain backward compatibility all the way back to C89 C++ does not maintain backwards compatibility with any version of C. Almost any relatively large idiomatic C program will fail when compiled as C++ for a few simple differences (most commonly, in C it is idiomatic to write `int *c = malloc(sizeof(int))`, while this is a type error in C++).

pjmlp 5y ago

Except Python is quite huge as well, and introduces breaking changes even across minor versions, people think it is simple, but that is actually quite deceiving.

frakt0x90 5y ago

I don't think that's true at all for Python. It's explicitly created as a "batteries included" language with a very large standard library. This is a quote from PEP 206: "The Python source distribution has long maintained the philosophy of "batteries included" -- having a rich and versatile standard library which is immediately available, without making the user download separate packages."

ehvatum 5y ago

> Dependency management is still a nightmare (as is the entire build system really, given that you don't have any standard C++ build system) CMake sucks but it’s OK that CMake quickly became so dominant, because at least it’s everywhere. It’s also peculiar, unhelpful, and dangerous in the same sort of general way as C++. So, I find CMake to be very comfortable, and I like it, and I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if Bjarne announced one day that CMake is now the standard C++ build system.