4 ms·

C++20 is honestly a pretty good language. So much of the anti-C++ sentiment seems to be from people who don't realize C++98 isn't what's in common use anymore (

C++20 is honestly a pretty good language. So much of the anti-C++ sentiment seems to be from people who don't realize C++98 isn't what's in common use anymore (and I would absolutely agree C++98 was kinda shit in many ways) But realistically anything where performance is the primary goal, especially graphical or media things, C++ is still going to be on your very very short list of languages to use. Rust is a compelling alternative, but... that's kinda it. It's really a choice between those 2. And you certainly can't be faulted for going with the far more established and far more widely used C++ over the new upstart Rust.

tialaramex 4y ago
> C++20 is honestly a pretty good language. > C++98 was kinda shit in many ways > And you certainly can't be faulted for going with the far more established and far more widely used C++ over the new upstart Rust. This cake-and-eat-it approach doesn't work. Either you're choosing C++ 20, and you get modern luxuries like a starts_with() method on strings but your language is so fresh out of the box that your tools don't work properly yet and your compiler vendor fixes swathes of fundamental bugs in core C++ 20 features every release or you're choosing to say well, C++ is really one language, and then ew... this library I'm using thinks raw pointers signify ownership because it was first written in 2008. Also, although C++ cleaned up lots of things since C++ 98 (for example Bjarne's terrible "look at me, I have operator overloading" I/O Streams is pushed aside by a modern formatting library in C++ 20) the fundamental ethos remains the same - C++ will always pick the wrong defaults. I'm not talking about a couple of unlucky choices, it's impossible to be this unlucky, they must surely be doing it on purpose. Without Vittorio's Epochs, which they very deliberately did not take for C++ 20, they won't be able to fix the defaults.
- kllrnohj 4y ago
  You're kinda ignoring the middle ground there? Intentionally maybe? Libraries written in 2008 and still maintained have long since moved to C++11 or C++14 or newer. The baseline is easily a post-C++11, which was a huge turning point. > C++ will always pick the wrong defaults Oh definitely. Bad defaults are probably my only remaining complaint with modern C++.

tialaramex 4y ago

> C++20 is honestly a pretty good language. > C++98 was kinda shit in many ways > And you certainly can't be faulted for going with the far more established and far more widely used C++ over the new upstart Rust. This cake-and-eat-it approach doesn't work. Either you're choosing C++ 20, and you get modern luxuries like a starts_with() method on strings but your language is so fresh out of the box that your tools don't work properly yet and your compiler vendor fixes swathes of fundamental bugs in core C++ 20 features every release or you're choosing to say well, C++ is really one language, and then ew... this library I'm using thinks raw pointers signify ownership because it was first written in 2008. Also, although C++ cleaned up lots of things since C++ 98 (for example Bjarne's terrible "look at me, I have operator overloading" I/O Streams is pushed aside by a modern formatting library in C++ 20) the fundamental ethos remains the same - C++ will always pick the wrong defaults. I'm not talking about a couple of unlucky choices, it's impossible to be this unlucky, they must surely be doing it on purpose. Without Vittorio's Epochs, which they very deliberately did not take for C++ 20, they won't be able to fix the defaults.

kllrnohj 4y ago
You're kinda ignoring the middle ground there? Intentionally maybe? Libraries written in 2008 and still maintained have long since moved to C++11 or C++14 or newer. The baseline is easily a post-C++11, which was a huge turning point. > C++ will always pick the wrong defaults Oh definitely. Bad defaults are probably my only remaining complaint with modern C++.