4 ms·

C++ is my favourite programming language precisely because one of its main designers is so sensible.

IshKebab 3y ago
Yeah mine too until Rust. But part of that sensibleness was making it backwards compatible with C, which entails a mountain of inherited design mistakes. I wonder what his blank slate language would have looked like.
- koolba 3y ago
  C++ is not backwards compatible with C. It’s mostly compatible, but it’s not completely compatible like say Objective C which is a strict superset of C.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    honestly, no one cares about splitting that hair. Most valid C programs will compile in C++ and believe it or not, binary logic is not the only logic humans are capable of.
    - zabzonk 3y ago
      actually, i reckon that most, if any, c programs will not compile with c++, without at least some (possibly not difficult) modifications
      - latency-guy2 3y ago
        My only qualms is the number of genuine C only compilers in use, vs number of embedded system companies/projects/codebases in the world. The subset of C features that are incompatible with C++ is quite small, and most of the features are a little out of the way IMO. Of the regular suspects (GCC, MSVC, Clang), your C codebase is probably entirely compatible with C++ as each of these has varying levels of compliance with the C and C++ standard.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        > Of the regular suspects (GCC, MSVC, Clang), your C codebase is probably entirely compatible with C++ as each of these has varying levels of compliance with the C and C++ standard. yep, leave it up to the technical crowd to try and split hairs too fine.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      Almost every C program does `int *c = malloc(sizeof(int) *10)` or similar, which has always been invalid C++.
      - fluoridation 3y ago
        I believe most compilers have switches to allow this. The real issue you might run into that can't be worked around easily is if the C source uses a C++ keyword as an identifier.
        kragen 3y ago
        #define new new_
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    They have diverged slightly in the years since C++ was introduced. But at the time the incompatibilities were extremely small. Even today they are pretty small and GCC/Clang will happily compile C constructs (e.g. designated initialisers, VLAs) with just a warning. Actually you need `-Wpedantic` to even get a warning for both of those. (And `-std=c++17` since designated initialisers are actually in C++20.)
    - owlbite 3y ago
      ...at least as long as you don't go anywhere near the atomic mess.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - ordu 3y ago
    > C++ is not backwards compatible with C. Yeah, it is really ironic. C++ got all the warts of C to be compatible with it and then C++ had lost its compatibility with C but not warts.
pjmlp 3y ago
Until C++98 came to be, nowadays, regardless of how sensible Bjarne Stroustoup happens to be, his opinion is a vote among 300 or so. Remember the Vasa paper happened for a reason.
- zabzonk 3y ago
  of course, but he is still very influential. better than languages that have no standard at all.

Yeah mine too until Rust. But part of that sensibleness was making it backwards compatible with C, which entails a mountain of inherited design mistakes. I wonder what his blank slate language would have looked like.

koolba 3y ago
C++ is not backwards compatible with C. It’s mostly compatible, but it’s not completely compatible like say Objective C which is a strict superset of C.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  honestly, no one cares about splitting that hair. Most valid C programs will compile in C++ and believe it or not, binary logic is not the only logic humans are capable of.
  - zabzonk 3y ago
    actually, i reckon that most, if any, c programs will not compile with c++, without at least some (possibly not difficult) modifications
    - latency-guy2 3y ago
      My only qualms is the number of genuine C only compilers in use, vs number of embedded system companies/projects/codebases in the world. The subset of C features that are incompatible with C++ is quite small, and most of the features are a little out of the way IMO. Of the regular suspects (GCC, MSVC, Clang), your C codebase is probably entirely compatible with C++ as each of these has varying levels of compliance with the C and C++ standard.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        > Of the regular suspects (GCC, MSVC, Clang), your C codebase is probably entirely compatible with C++ as each of these has varying levels of compliance with the C and C++ standard. yep, leave it up to the technical crowd to try and split hairs too fine.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    Almost every C program does `int *c = malloc(sizeof(int) *10)` or similar, which has always been invalid C++.
    - fluoridation 3y ago
      I believe most compilers have switches to allow this. The real issue you might run into that can't be worked around easily is if the C source uses a C++ keyword as an identifier.
      - kragen 3y ago
        #define new new_
- IshKebab 3y ago
  They have diverged slightly in the years since C++ was introduced. But at the time the incompatibilities were extremely small. Even today they are pretty small and GCC/Clang will happily compile C constructs (e.g. designated initialisers, VLAs) with just a warning. Actually you need `-Wpedantic` to even get a warning for both of those. (And `-std=c++17` since designated initialisers are actually in C++20.)
  - owlbite 3y ago
    ...at least as long as you don't go anywhere near the atomic mess.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- ordu 3y ago
  > C++ is not backwards compatible with C. Yeah, it is really ironic. C++ got all the warts of C to be compatible with it and then C++ had lost its compatibility with C but not warts.

pjmlp 3y ago

Until C++98 came to be, nowadays, regardless of how sensible Bjarne Stroustoup happens to be, his opinion is a vote among 300 or so. Remember the Vasa paper happened for a reason.

zabzonk 3y ago
of course, but he is still very influential. better than languages that have no standard at all.