5 ms·

> C is not a simple language In comparison to C++ it is. C++ isn't a strict superset of C, but for all intents and purposes, it supports all the nasty warts of

by _gabe_ 4y ago

> C is not a simple language In comparison to C++ it is. C++ isn't a strict superset of C, but for all intents and purposes, it supports all the nasty warts of C PLUS a million other foot guns added on with no guidance whatsoever on which features are "safe" and "modern". Just a short list of additional complexities in C++: constructors/destructors, operator overloading, templates, constexpr/consteval, copy constructors/move constructors/perfect forwarding etc, smart pointers (when do you use smart versus raw? Herb Stutter has some guidelines on this), lambdas, massive std lib, etc. > But in this case C isn't even any different, so this tangent is irrelevant anyway. But C is different... if you pass by value in C what's going to happen? It copies the bits. What about C++? Drum roll please... Who the heck knows. It could call some copy constructor, or it could just copy the bits, or it could recursively call copy constructors on all the nested objects etc. You literally cannot tell in C++ without looking at the implementation or already knowing what's going to happen.

kllrnohj 4y ago
You're right, of course. In C I don't even know if the code works at all, whereas I can be reasonably confident it does in C++. But hey, it's apparently more important to know it's a memcpy than to know it works! Such simplicity! I'm so glad a built-in operator has just no expectations of being useful or correct, what a truly wonderful language.
- _gabe_ 4y ago
  You're shifting the goalpost here. You said: > C is not a simple language In response to the claim that: > I’m not trying to crap on C++, but for a low-level language, the simplicity of C is simply unmatched! C is simpler than C++, for the reasons I outlined above. This has no correlation on how correct the code is or if it works. If you want to argue that, go ahead but that's a different argument. > But hey, it's apparently more important to know it's a memcpy than to know it works! Such simplicity! I'm so glad a built-in operator has just no expectations of being useful or correct, what a truly wonderful language. Great, you can be facetious all you want, it doesn't add or detract to your claim that C is not simple in comparison to C++. And by the way, I use C++ and prefer it to C. I love the fact that you can use templates in C++ for type safety when it comes to generic containers and use destructors to help with resource management etc. But let's not kid ourselves, C is simpler than C++ and trying to argue against that is pointless.
  - kllrnohj 4y ago
    C is a simpler compiler and language spec but I think where we're disagreeing is on whether or not it's simpler to use. I'm saying it's not simpler to use, not that it's not simpler to make a compiler for it C is not simple to use. It's full of non-obvious gotchas with little to no tooling support to aid with handling the vast complexity that the problem space actually contains. To such an extent that, yes, I think the end result is using C correctly is more complex than using C++ correctly despite the C language spec itself being "simpler" - because that simplicity came by punting all the complexity onto the user.
    - _gabe_ 4y ago
      It seems like we've come full circle. > C is not simple to use. It's full of non-obvious gotchas with little to no tooling support to aid with handling the vast complexity that the problem space actually contains Once again, C++ contains the same non-obvious gotchas plus several additional gotchas as I said initially. C++ can only ever be as simple as C, not simpler since it aims to be mostly a superset of C. Sure string handling and stuff is annoying in C, but you can create libraries for that stuff the same way C++ has. I'm not sure how else to put this. Simplicity does not mean ease of use, and the fact of the matter is C will always be simpler than C++ because C++ aims to be a superset of C.
      - ncppigger 4y ago
        [flagged]
      - kllrnohj 4y ago
        C++ provides tools that C does not (and cannot with just a library) to aid in managing the complexity of the space. Adding complexity to a language can reduce the complexity in using it. This is the case for C++, Rust, D's betterC, etc... when compared to C. All of them add complexity to the language to reduce the complexity in using it. If you can't understand this, so be it. But the entire computing industry fully disagrees with you here. As an aside, your insistence that C++ is a superset of C is factually wrong regardless. C++ changes a number of C behaviors, it is not a strict superset.

by _gabe_ 4y ago

kllrnohj 4y ago

You're right, of course. In C I don't even know if the code works at all, whereas I can be reasonably confident it does in C++. But hey, it's apparently more important to know it's a memcpy than to know it works! Such simplicity! I'm so glad a built-in operator has just no expectations of being useful or correct, what a truly wonderful language.

_gabe_ 4y ago
You're shifting the goalpost here. You said: > C is not a simple language In response to the claim that: > I’m not trying to crap on C++, but for a low-level language, the simplicity of C is simply unmatched! C is simpler than C++, for the reasons I outlined above. This has no correlation on how correct the code is or if it works. If you want to argue that, go ahead but that's a different argument. > But hey, it's apparently more important to know it's a memcpy than to know it works! Such simplicity! I'm so glad a built-in operator has just no expectations of being useful or correct, what a truly wonderful language. Great, you can be facetious all you want, it doesn't add or detract to your claim that C is not simple in comparison to C++. And by the way, I use C++ and prefer it to C. I love the fact that you can use templates in C++ for type safety when it comes to generic containers and use destructors to help with resource management etc. But let's not kid ourselves, C is simpler than C++ and trying to argue against that is pointless.
- kllrnohj 4y ago
  C is a simpler compiler and language spec but I think where we're disagreeing is on whether or not it's simpler to use. I'm saying it's not simpler to use, not that it's not simpler to make a compiler for it C is not simple to use. It's full of non-obvious gotchas with little to no tooling support to aid with handling the vast complexity that the problem space actually contains. To such an extent that, yes, I think the end result is using C correctly is more complex than using C++ correctly despite the C language spec itself being "simpler" - because that simplicity came by punting all the complexity onto the user.
  - _gabe_ 4y ago
    It seems like we've come full circle. > C is not simple to use. It's full of non-obvious gotchas with little to no tooling support to aid with handling the vast complexity that the problem space actually contains Once again, C++ contains the same non-obvious gotchas plus several additional gotchas as I said initially. C++ can only ever be as simple as C, not simpler since it aims to be mostly a superset of C. Sure string handling and stuff is annoying in C, but you can create libraries for that stuff the same way C++ has. I'm not sure how else to put this. Simplicity does not mean ease of use, and the fact of the matter is C will always be simpler than C++ because C++ aims to be a superset of C.
    - ncppigger 4y ago
      [flagged]
    - kllrnohj 4y ago
      C++ provides tools that C does not (and cannot with just a library) to aid in managing the complexity of the space. Adding complexity to a language can reduce the complexity in using it. This is the case for C++, Rust, D's betterC, etc... when compared to C. All of them add complexity to the language to reduce the complexity in using it. If you can't understand this, so be it. But the entire computing industry fully disagrees with you here. As an aside, your insistence that C++ is a superset of C is factually wrong regardless. C++ changes a number of C behaviors, it is not a strict superset.