3 ms·

> Of course they're adding things to C++ The point is not the _adding_, it's the effective _replacement_. It's like a toolkit with some lame tools. Even though

> Of course they're adding things to C++ The point is not the _adding_, it's the effective _replacement_. It's like a toolkit with some lame tools. Even though you keep them in there for old time's sake, you add new tools which you use instead of the old ones. So, yes, your toolkit is heavier, but working with the updated toolkit is not like it was working with the old one. > C++ is too complicated Well, it is certainly complicated. Certainly more complicated than anyone would like, including the WG21 bigshots. But its (effective) design principles necessitate complexity: 1. Multi-paradigmaticity (sp?) 2. Backwards compatibility it could drop one or both of those and be much simpler, like you suggest. > The only way to actually fix that would be to face the monster and slim down C++ Except then it wouldn't be C++, but another language - which is fine. Another famous quote by Stroustrup is: "Within C++, there is a much smaller and cleaner language struggling to get out" ... but that language would not be Rust, it would be slimmer underpinnings of is idiomatic C++20 today. Or perhaps of what idiomatic C++26 would be :-P > C++ isn't too unsafe it's just too easy to get things wrong I disagree; or rather, these days, I disagree: This has, paradoxically, gotten much much better - because of all of those additions you decry. They have made it so that you can steer clear of unsafe and complex territory for a lot more things. You write more intuitive, safer code; and are better protected by the libraries you use and by improved tooling. It's true that the underpinnings of these libraries are now (usually) bigger and more complex, but the end result for the developer is the opposite. --- PS - I would really love UFCS to get into the language, I think the opposition to it is kind of inane.

dezren39 5y ago
zig for basic c rust for c++ or fancy c either way, use zig as the backend
tialaramex 5y ago
Last things first: UFCS fits perfectly with C++ culturally. In particular UFCS means when Library A provides a function that says it can twiddle a foozle, Library B that provides foozles and explicitly doesn't want you twiddling them can't stop anybody calling foozle.twiddle() and C++ says as a programmer the resulting mess lands in your lap. > Except then it wouldn't be C++, but another language - which is fine. Hogwash. It's C++ if they say it's C++. When I first wrote some C++ I could write: auto foo = something(); That was a very strange way to say "int foo" because auto meant automatic (ie local) storage and the default type was int. But it was legal C++ when I was a teenager. But, today if I write: auto foo = something(); That's a variable whose type will be chosen automatically (C++ auto is not merely inference and will choose something even when it isn't clear what you meant). That was not another language, it was still C++ it was merely changed in an important way. In C++ 20 and particularly in the decision to not take Epochs, they decided C++ must never again be changed. > They have made it so that you can steer clear of unsafe and complex territory for a lot more things. No. Putting a little wooden fence along the crumbling edges of a fast mountain road and saying "Now it's safer" is almost worse than not bothering. It is concerning that this fools people. Real safety looks quite different, consider my misfortunate::Maxwell type in Rust. The Rust traits this implements are definitively safe. If you try to store a bunch of Maxwells in a Hashset things won't go well for you since Maxwells aren't Equal (even to themselves) and yet they all Hash the same. But whereas in C++ such things get you Undefined Behaviour and all bets are off, in Rust we have safety and so the behaviour may be useless (e.g. infinite loop) but it is never Undefined. Our program is wrong but because it's safe we can successfully reason about why it doesn't work.

dezren39 5y ago

zig for basic c rust for c++ or fancy c either way, use zig as the backend

tialaramex 5y ago

Last things first: UFCS fits perfectly with C++ culturally. In particular UFCS means when Library A provides a function that says it can twiddle a foozle, Library B that provides foozles and explicitly doesn't want you twiddling them can't stop anybody calling foozle.twiddle() and C++ says as a programmer the resulting mess lands in your lap. > Except then it wouldn't be C++, but another language - which is fine. Hogwash. It's C++ if they say it's C++. When I first wrote some C++ I could write: auto foo = something(); That was a very strange way to say "int foo" because auto meant automatic (ie local) storage and the default type was int. But it was legal C++ when I was a teenager. But, today if I write: auto foo = something(); That's a variable whose type will be chosen automatically (C++ auto is not merely inference and will choose something even when it isn't clear what you meant). That was not another language, it was still C++ it was merely changed in an important way. In C++ 20 and particularly in the decision to not take Epochs, they decided C++ must never again be changed. > They have made it so that you can steer clear of unsafe and complex territory for a lot more things. No. Putting a little wooden fence along the crumbling edges of a fast mountain road and saying "Now it's safer" is almost worse than not bothering. It is concerning that this fools people. Real safety looks quite different, consider my misfortunate::Maxwell type in Rust. The Rust traits this implements are definitively safe. If you try to store a bunch of Maxwells in a Hashset things won't go well for you since Maxwells aren't Equal (even to themselves) and yet they all Hash the same. But whereas in C++ such things get you Undefined Behaviour and all bets are off, in Rust we have safety and so the behaviour may be useless (e.g. infinite loop) but it is never Undefined. Our program is wrong but because it's safe we can successfully reason about why it doesn't work.