3 ms·
Most C++ devs don't care that much either way I'd say, it's a vocal minority that does. I really don't understand the nay-sayers though, been a C++ dev for over
by OvbiousError 2y ago
Most C++ devs don't care that much either way I'd say, it's a vocal minority that does. I really don't understand the nay-sayers though, been a C++ dev for over 15 years, I'd give an arm and a leg for 1. faster language evolution (cries in pattern matching) and 2. a way to enforce safe code. Having to use std::variant when I want to use a sum type in 2024 is just so backwards it's hard to express. Still love the language though :p
- pjmlp 2y agoC++ became my favourite language after Object Pascal, as it provided similar safety levels, added with the portability. I never been that big into C, although I do know it relatively well, as much as anyone can claim to do so, because it is a key language in anything UNIX/POSIX and Windows anyway. One of the appealing things back then were the C++ frameworks that were provided alongside C++ compilers, pre-ISO C++98, all of them with more security consideration than what ended up landing on the standard library, e.g. bounds checking by default on collection types. Nowadays I rather spend my time in other languages, and reach out to C++ on a per-need basis, as other language communities take the security discussion more seriously. However, likewise I still love the language itself, and is one of those that I usually reach for in side projects, where I can freely turn to 100% all the safety features available to me, without the usual drama from some C++ circles.