4 ms·

I think the fundamental flaw of C++ is the bifurcation of its target users into elite (i.e. library) programmers and "average" programmers. It makes the C++ sta

I think the fundamental flaw of C++ is the bifurcation of its target users into elite (i.e. library) programmers and "average" programmers. It makes the C++ standard library incomprehensible for normal users. The C++ committee members are composed of elite programmers, of course, so they keep adding features which are inscrutable to most users, and the complexity of the language spirals out of control. I have a soft spot in my heart for C++. I have used it on and off for about 30 years, 8-9 of those years professionally. But the complexity of the language has increased so much that I am actually looking forward to not writing it anymore.

r-w 5y ago
I wonder if Rust is any different. I wouldn't know.
- anchpop 5y ago
  Rust has a similar bifurcation. Most "regular users" of rust will not write macros, for example. Although my impression is that the divide is not as big as C++'s
  - troutwine 5y ago
    I don't know that I would consider writing macros a sign of language expertise. I work on a large, intricate Rust project and macro stuff, while it does come up occasionally, is not what I would see as the "elite" bit of writing Rust. The best Rust folks I have seen understand Rust's type system, how it relates to the memory model and how those relate to the underlying machine.
  - pkolaczk 5y ago
    I feared macros initially, but when I tried I was actually surprised by how easy they were. Way easier than Scala 2.x macros.
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    Rust has two macro systems. First it has declarative "by example" macros which I wouldn't give to an absolute beginner but they're very safe and give a flavour of meta-programming. A programmer with a good general knowledge of Rust, and a nagging feeling that there must be a better way to make these several almost-identical-but-not-quite new types they're working on can learn how to write "by example" macros and while learning probably won't set anything on fire. Rust even provides, out of the box, an easy way to see what the result was of your macro substitution. Second, modern Rust has stable procedural macros. The procedural macros have essentially unlimited power, since they literally run inside the compiler processing the tokens of the program. Still, two kinds of proc macro, derive macros and attribute macros are fairly tame and, with due caution, merely competent programmers can experiment for themselves. It's really only the function-like proc macro that makes unlimited chaos likely and wants an expert. Stuff like whichever_compiles! (a macro which takes a series of code blocks and your program has the first one that compiled successfully...) is in this last category and is clearly toxic. Anybody who could write such things hopefully knows enough to do so only as an elaborate joke.
- yakubin 5y ago
  I regularly read source code of the Rust standard library. With C++ I don't even bother, it's futile.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

r-w 5y ago

I wonder if Rust is any different. I wouldn't know.

anchpop 5y ago
Rust has a similar bifurcation. Most "regular users" of rust will not write macros, for example. Although my impression is that the divide is not as big as C++'s
- troutwine 5y ago
  I don't know that I would consider writing macros a sign of language expertise. I work on a large, intricate Rust project and macro stuff, while it does come up occasionally, is not what I would see as the "elite" bit of writing Rust. The best Rust folks I have seen understand Rust's type system, how it relates to the memory model and how those relate to the underlying machine.
- pkolaczk 5y ago
  I feared macros initially, but when I tried I was actually surprised by how easy they were. Way easier than Scala 2.x macros.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Rust has two macro systems. First it has declarative "by example" macros which I wouldn't give to an absolute beginner but they're very safe and give a flavour of meta-programming. A programmer with a good general knowledge of Rust, and a nagging feeling that there must be a better way to make these several almost-identical-but-not-quite new types they're working on can learn how to write "by example" macros and while learning probably won't set anything on fire. Rust even provides, out of the box, an easy way to see what the result was of your macro substitution. Second, modern Rust has stable procedural macros. The procedural macros have essentially unlimited power, since they literally run inside the compiler processing the tokens of the program. Still, two kinds of proc macro, derive macros and attribute macros are fairly tame and, with due caution, merely competent programmers can experiment for themselves. It's really only the function-like proc macro that makes unlimited chaos likely and wants an expert. Stuff like whichever_compiles! (a macro which takes a series of code blocks and your program has the first one that compiled successfully...) is in this last category and is clearly toxic. Anybody who could write such things hopefully knows enough to do so only as an elaborate joke.
yakubin 5y ago
I regularly read source code of the Rust standard library. With C++ I don't even bother, it's futile.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]