4 ms·
By the same argument we don't really need C to begin with, because things can still be coded in assembly. It all boils down to convenience of reducing boilerpla
by huhtenberg 3y ago
By the same argument we don't really need C to begin with, because things can still be coded in assembly. It all boils down to convenience of reducing boilerplate. As the meme goes - "You don't need sneakers to run, but they sure help."
- phkahler 3y agoAnd if I understand your point its that we should embrace higher level tools rather than trying to build abstractions in lower level tools. In that case OP should just use C++ rather than trying to build an abstraction into C. That going higher level is actually why C++ was created in the first place.
- huhtenberg 3y agoThe point was that if there's a certain coding pattern that can be accommodated by adding a new language feature, it is worth considering. The fact that it's readily doable with some effort in some other way is not an argument against it. C++ started as a reasonable extension to C, but now it's just something else (nor does it even want to be seen related to C now anyway). Extending C with something new, without rushing, is a perfectly fine idea.