3 ms·

C++ could have been so much . . . less. Any language that takes the better part of a year to develop an adequate parser for is NOT to be trusted. I had a long

by kabdib 15y ago

C++ could have been so much . . . less. Any language that takes the better part of a year to develop an adequate parser for is NOT to be trusted. I had a long rant on RTTI, templates, the positively miserable experience around exceptions, and so on. But you've heard it before. C++ should have /started/ with a string class and a set of collection classes, rather than having them be bolted on a decade later. This would have driven the language in much more useful directions. I don't know if it's possible to remove features, but I've seen three groups independently come up with essentially the same C++ coding guidelines (the Google C++ guidelines are a great example), all deprecating large swaths of the language because they are dangerous, fragile or make bugs. My experience with OS-level development is that you get a better code with vanilla C.

shin_lao 15y ago
Every person uses a different subset of C++, but that subset varies from a group to the other. You cannot therefore "remove features from C++". A lot of people use C++ to code as they would in Java or C#, generally their experience is terrible. Exceptions don't work the way you think they do (in C++ exceptions should be exceptional). Polymorphism is more verbose, it's not introspective, etc. There's much to say about it. I've found you enjoy the language much more when you go generic/functional full speed. You also understand why some arcane features of the languages are there (such as the .* operator).
- dextorious 15y ago
  """Every person uses a different subset of C++, but that subset varies from a group to the other. You cannot therefore "remove features of C++"""" Actually you can. You don't remove them from the existing language that is, you make a better language with bs/redundant removed. While "every person uses a different subset of C++" is true, it's not like everything someone uses is equally beneficial to have in a language. As the parent said, what is useful and what is not is not that controversial: "I've seen three groups independently come up with essentially the same C++ coding guidelines (the Google C++ guidelines are a great example), all deprecating large swaths of the language"
  - shin_lao 15y ago
    Perhaps I would understand better what you're trying to say if you were to give me an example of a controversial feature.
    - kabdib 15y ago
      Multiple inheritance. Operator overloading. Doing non-atomic work in constructors (allocating memory, doing file I/O, etc.). RTTI Template metaprogramming ... and more

by kabdib 15y ago

shin_lao 15y ago

Every person uses a different subset of C++, but that subset varies from a group to the other. You cannot therefore "remove features from C++". A lot of people use C++ to code as they would in Java or C#, generally their experience is terrible. Exceptions don't work the way you think they do (in C++ exceptions should be exceptional). Polymorphism is more verbose, it's not introspective, etc. There's much to say about it. I've found you enjoy the language much more when you go generic/functional full speed. You also understand why some arcane features of the languages are there (such as the .* operator).

dextorious 15y ago
"""Every person uses a different subset of C++, but that subset varies from a group to the other. You cannot therefore "remove features of C++"""" Actually you can. You don't remove them from the existing language that is, you make a better language with bs/redundant removed. While "every person uses a different subset of C++" is true, it's not like everything someone uses is equally beneficial to have in a language. As the parent said, what is useful and what is not is not that controversial: "I've seen three groups independently come up with essentially the same C++ coding guidelines (the Google C++ guidelines are a great example), all deprecating large swaths of the language"
- shin_lao 15y ago
  Perhaps I would understand better what you're trying to say if you were to give me an example of a controversial feature.
  - kabdib 15y ago
    Multiple inheritance. Operator overloading. Doing non-atomic work in constructors (allocating memory, doing file I/O, etc.). RTTI Template metaprogramming ... and more