6 ms·

> This is the sort of change that adds complexity to the language but reduces complexity in the code written in the language. We take those An admirable statem

> This is the sort of change that adds complexity to the language but reduces complexity in the code written in the language. We take those An admirable statement of policy, but I'm not sure it's possible. Adding complexity to the language means there are more gotchas and edge-cases that a programmer must consider, even if they don't use the feature in question.

verall 2y ago
> Adding complexity to the language means there are more gotchas and edge-cases that a programmer must consider, even if they don't use the feature in question. Since this is C++, this is not a problem we have to consider
- pjmlp 2y ago
  This is a meme by now, yet it isn't as if Python 3.13 is a simple as Python 1.0, Java 23 versus Java 1.0, .NET 9 with C# 13 versus .NET 1.0 with C# 1.0 and a Framework reboot,....
  - cylemons 2y ago
    C# has a lot of features but most of them feel like simple syntactic sugar that make the language a joy to use and they interact nicely together. C++ has lots of features that interact with each other in unexpected ways that could leak memory or access freed memory etc.
    - pjmlp 2y ago
      C# has already enough material for pub Quiz, and no, not all of them are syntatic sugar, and require deep knowledge of the .NET runtime, and the way it interacts with the host platforms. I imagine you never went too deep into unsafe, cross language interop, lambda evolution since the delegate days, events infrastructure, pluggable GC, RCW/CCW, JIT monitoring, the new COM replacement, how the runtime and language features differ across .NET Framework, Core, .NET MicroFramework, UWP, AOT compilation, Mono, .NET standard versus Portable Class Libraries, CLS friendly libraries,... On top of that, all the standard frameworks that are part of a full .NET install on Visual Studio, expected that most C# developers know to at least have some passing knowledge on how to use them.
      - neonsunset 2y ago
        There is no need to just throw keywords around. For other readers - more than half of these are irrelevant. Writing general purpose application code rarely involves thinking about implications of most of these (save for NAOT as of lately I suppose). Writing systems C# involves additional learning curve, but if you are already familiar with C++, it comes down to understanding the correct mapping between features, learning strengths and weaknesses of the compiler and the GC and maybe doing a cursory disassembly check now and then, if you care about it.
        mkoubaa 2y ago
        The original comment was about the divergence of the complexity of a language and the complexity of programs implemented in the language. I think the comment you replied to with all its keywords and jargon beautifully illustrated the point
        neonsunset 2y ago
        No one of sane mind accesses even one tenth of these on a daily basis. They simply do not matter. For example - CLS-compatiblity, seriously? I'd return the favour and ask the interviewer why they disagree with the .NET's team stance that this lost relevance in early .NET versions more than a decade ago. There are main framework and features to be aware of, there are some that may be relevant to legacy codebases you must avoid like fire, and there are those to which the only appropriate response would be "this never existed, if it did, forget about it". (to Pjmlp - please do not equate knowing the terms with understanding them, and stop bringing up whatever was left by wayside of history to people who should have no business being bothered by this nonsense, thank you)
        pjmlp 2y ago
        Just like not everyone accesses 100% of C++ on daily basis on their work. I do whatever I please, feel free to ignore my comments, downvote them, or whatever goes on your heart regarding them.
        2y ago
  - verall 2y ago
    Yes of course, and I mean it somewhat seriously - C++ engineers are used to the language being too complex for anyone to completely understand. It's worth some more incremental language complexity to support niceties like fstrings without additional overhead.
truncate 2y ago
Depends on case to case basis. I wouldn't generalize it to every case. As a daily C++ engineer, I think overall many features added over the years have mostly been positive. There are features that I don't use and I don't think it really affects much. That said, I do get the sentiment of language becoming too syntactically complex. I like this feature as string formatting is something frequently used and this certainly looks cleaner and quicker to write.

verall 2y ago

> Adding complexity to the language means there are more gotchas and edge-cases that a programmer must consider, even if they don't use the feature in question. Since this is C++, this is not a problem we have to consider

pjmlp 2y ago
This is a meme by now, yet it isn't as if Python 3.13 is a simple as Python 1.0, Java 23 versus Java 1.0, .NET 9 with C# 13 versus .NET 1.0 with C# 1.0 and a Framework reboot,....
- cylemons 2y ago
  C# has a lot of features but most of them feel like simple syntactic sugar that make the language a joy to use and they interact nicely together. C++ has lots of features that interact with each other in unexpected ways that could leak memory or access freed memory etc.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    C# has already enough material for pub Quiz, and no, not all of them are syntatic sugar, and require deep knowledge of the .NET runtime, and the way it interacts with the host platforms. I imagine you never went too deep into unsafe, cross language interop, lambda evolution since the delegate days, events infrastructure, pluggable GC, RCW/CCW, JIT monitoring, the new COM replacement, how the runtime and language features differ across .NET Framework, Core, .NET MicroFramework, UWP, AOT compilation, Mono, .NET standard versus Portable Class Libraries, CLS friendly libraries,... On top of that, all the standard frameworks that are part of a full .NET install on Visual Studio, expected that most C# developers know to at least have some passing knowledge on how to use them.
    - neonsunset 2y ago
      There is no need to just throw keywords around. For other readers - more than half of these are irrelevant. Writing general purpose application code rarely involves thinking about implications of most of these (save for NAOT as of lately I suppose). Writing systems C# involves additional learning curve, but if you are already familiar with C++, it comes down to understanding the correct mapping between features, learning strengths and weaknesses of the compiler and the GC and maybe doing a cursory disassembly check now and then, if you care about it.
      - mkoubaa 2y ago
        The original comment was about the divergence of the complexity of a language and the complexity of programs implemented in the language. I think the comment you replied to with all its keywords and jargon beautifully illustrated the point
        neonsunset 2y ago
        No one of sane mind accesses even one tenth of these on a daily basis. They simply do not matter. For example - CLS-compatiblity, seriously? I'd return the favour and ask the interviewer why they disagree with the .NET's team stance that this lost relevance in early .NET versions more than a decade ago. There are main framework and features to be aware of, there are some that may be relevant to legacy codebases you must avoid like fire, and there are those to which the only appropriate response would be "this never existed, if it did, forget about it". (to Pjmlp - please do not equate knowing the terms with understanding them, and stop bringing up whatever was left by wayside of history to people who should have no business being bothered by this nonsense, thank you)
        pjmlp 2y ago
        Just like not everyone accesses 100% of C++ on daily basis on their work. I do whatever I please, feel free to ignore my comments, downvote them, or whatever goes on your heart regarding them.
      - 2y ago
- verall 2y ago
  Yes of course, and I mean it somewhat seriously - C++ engineers are used to the language being too complex for anyone to completely understand. It's worth some more incremental language complexity to support niceties like fstrings without additional overhead.

truncate 2y ago

Depends on case to case basis. I wouldn't generalize it to every case. As a daily C++ engineer, I think overall many features added over the years have mostly been positive. There are features that I don't use and I don't think it really affects much. That said, I do get the sentiment of language becoming too syntactically complex. I like this feature as string formatting is something frequently used and this certainly looks cleaner and quicker to write.