5 ms·

In 2026, there really needs to be a REALLY good reason for people to use C++ for greenfield projects over using something like Rust, Go or C#. I mean, I've made

In 2026, there really needs to be a REALLY good reason for people to use C++ for greenfield projects over using something like Rust, Go or C#. I mean, I've made it work, but that pretty much involves making a completely new build system AND test framework from scratch because C++ tooling is just that bad, because I swear I spent 2 days trying to setup CMake to get Skyrim modding setup, and in the end, I had to tap out and begrudgingly had Codex do it. The other major problem for C++ is that correct C++ basically looks like nonsense, because the committee insists on pushing dangerous footguns that nobody sane would ever use in normal codebases through yet takes their sweet time with adding basic functionalities like pattern matching or even "print", which is somehow finally added in C++23. Worse still, nothing is ever really allowed to be removed/deprecated from C++, so you have decades of accumulated syntax debt that nobody is allowed to actually fix. I think the biggest issue with C++ is that despite the fact that 90% of the language just should not be used in any normal code, period, there really is nothing that can replace C++ in its niche of high performance, low-level systems level programming. There is a good language buried underneath C++ somewhere, it's just that nobody has taken the time to extract it.

lelanthran 2mo ago
> There is a good language buried underneath C++ somewhere, it's just that nobody has taken the time to extract it. Carbon?
- saidinesh5 2mo ago
  Has anyone major used that for any production project though?
- YuechenLi 2mo ago
  Carbon isn't even a real language, no real language will spent 4 entire years and is still stuck in version 0.0.0-0. It feels more like bad Rust than a proper C++ successor at all. Just to give you a small example? why would a C++ successor language use `fn main()` instead of using C/C++ style `int main()`? And their generics system is even more confusing, are they going to support a new form of generics or are they sticking with templates? And if they are going to add templates, why would they not add pretty much one of the best additions to modern C++ to Carbon, concepts?
  - flohofwoe 2mo ago
    > why would a C++ successor language use `fn main()` instead of using C/C++ style `int main()` Apparently easier and faster parsing. Most modern language have arrived at the `fn bla(arg: ArgType): ResultType` form and I don't think they made that decision for purely aesthetical reasons.
    - vintagedave 2mo ago
      Even C++ has. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/cpp/trailing-return-type-in-cpp-11/ https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/cpp/trailing-return-type-in-cp...
    - lelanthran 2mo ago
      > Most modern language have arrived at the `fn bla(arg: ArgType): ResultType` form and I don't think they made that decision for purely aesthetical reasons. Not just modern, it's older than you think. Pascal function definition is `function bla(arg: ArgType): ResultType;`
  - rpnx 2mo ago
    > no real language will spent 4 entire years and is still stuck in version 0.0.0-0. Strongly disagree. I too thought that it would be easy to implement a new language in 1-2 years. I started the current Quxlang codebase (under a different name) on Dec 27, 2022. In 2026, hundreds of commits and hundreds of thousands of lines of code later, I still don't have a feature complete language. I also rewrote the syntax, mainly because C++ parsing is a nightmare... Although my choice was very different...
- flohofwoe 2mo ago
  No, it's C :) And for me that's not even a hot take anymore, I switched back to C (specifically C99 and later) around 2017 after nearly 20 years of C++ as my main language, and I don't miss C++ the slightest. The hardest part was unlearning some bad C++ habits. The other 'behaviour change' for me was to open my mind to more programming languages. E.g. instead of trying to solve every problem with C++ I now pick a language that better matches the problem I want to solve (e.g. on one end of my language toolbox is C, on the other extreme end is Typescript, and somewhere in the middle are Zig, on Mac of course the occasional ObjC (not a fan of Swift tbh), and yes, sometimes even still modern C++ - in the end, the choice of language is mostly driven by the dependencies you need to use).
  - lelanthran 2mo ago
    > No, it's C :) And for me that's not even a hot take anymore, For me, I switched away from C++ in 2008 or thereabouts. For anything that needs a higher level of abstraction than C, I'll use Lisp, Python, Java, C#[1], etc. You might enjoy (shameless plug to my own blog): https://www.lelanthran.com/chap9/content.html https://www.lelanthran.com/chap9/content.html https://www.lelanthran.com/chap13/content.html https://www.lelanthran.com/chap13/content.html ============================= [1] Although, C# has lately gone the way of becoming incomprehensible syntax-wise. I've seen this happen with C++ in the past, so not so sure I'll even use C# again.
HappMacDonald 2mo ago
> There is a good language buried underneath C++ somewhere Well.. "C".. though I wouldn't go so far as to call that a good language, either.
- badpun 2mo ago
  Lack of support for type-safe containers (need to be hack toghether via macros) and overreliance on macros in general (which are not IDE and debugger friendly) are two aspects of C that are off-putting for majority of people in 2026. That's even assuming you're willing to forego pointer/memory safety.
  - flohofwoe 2mo ago
    Indeed, picking C doesn't make sense when you actually want to write C++ code in C ;)
  - wasmperson 2mo ago
    > Lack of support for type-safe containers (need to be hack toghether via macros) Are templates really so much better than macros that the latter deserve to be called a "hack"? The following two examples are both type-safe and have roughly the same semantics and #LoC: Macros: // pair.h struct id(pair) { T a, b; }; static inline struct id(pair) id(make_pair)(T a, T b){ return (struct id(pair)){ .a = a, .b = b }; } #undef id #undef T // main.c #include <stdio.h> #define T int #define id(n) n ## _int #include "pair.h" int main(void){ struct pair_int p = make_pair_int(12, 13); printf("%d %d\n", p.a, p.b); } Templates: //pair.h template<typename T> struct pair { T a, b; }; template<typename T> pair<T> make_pair(T a, T b){ return (pair<T>){ .a = a, .b = b }; } //main.cpp #include <stdio.h> #include "pair.h" int main(void){ pair<int> p = make_pair(12, 13); printf("%d %d\n", p.a, p.b); }
- YuechenLi 2mo ago
  Well, Carbon would have been better off if they just made "C with `match` and sane error handling" instead of whatever it is they are building there over at Google. But still, I think C and C++ are honestly very different languages at this point and that you can't really call C++ a superset of C at all really.
throwaway2037 2mo ago
> involves making a completely new build system AND test framework from scratch because C++ tooling is just that bad In 2026, CMake is the standard build tool, and Google Test is usually a safe choice. There are many example projects on GitHub to learn how to use them.
- YuechenLi 2mo ago
  I think you misunderstood me. I did use them at first, but it took so much effort for me to set them up and config them for that particular application (Code only Skyrim modding) where I pretty much spent an entire day debugging and diagnosing crashes in CMakeLists.txt with the only info being random forum posts and Youtube videos on the subject without having written a single line of C++ that I decided to build my own instead.
locknitpicker 2mo ago
> In 2026, there really needs to be a REALLY good reason for people to use C++ for greenfield projects over using something like Rust, Go or C#. I don't think that professional developers go around mindlessly starting projects without evaluating their choices. The truth of the matter is that the whole industry has been picking C++ over alternatives for ages, to the point where C++ managed to get one of the most popular languages devised. Why do you think that happened? > I mean, I've made it work, but that pretty much involves making a completely new build system AND test framework from scratch (...) That says more about your competence than anything. I mean, CMake works so well that companies such as Jetbrains developed their C++ IDEs around it. But somehow you seem to struggle where everyone just dash towards coding. Why is that?
- rpnx 2mo ago
  The C++ environment for builds is kind of awful. It's usable, but extremely complicated, non-uniform, and rarely well implemented. CMake isn't a good build system, it's just the least bad one we have.
rpnx 2mo ago
Disagree. There are important things C++ gets "right" that languages like Go, C#, Java, and Rust get "wrong". It's difficult to impress these ideas on people who dislike C++, because they are largely not willing to learn C++. The C++ build environment is awful, I'll give you that much. I find people tend to fall into two camps, people who don't understand C++ because it's "too complicated" and people who like C++ (though acknowledge the syntax is a bit odd sometimes). Extraction of the essence of C++ is ongoing...

lelanthran 2mo ago

> There is a good language buried underneath C++ somewhere, it's just that nobody has taken the time to extract it. Carbon?

saidinesh5 2mo ago
Has anyone major used that for any production project though?
YuechenLi 2mo ago
Carbon isn't even a real language, no real language will spent 4 entire years and is still stuck in version 0.0.0-0. It feels more like bad Rust than a proper C++ successor at all. Just to give you a small example? why would a C++ successor language use `fn main()` instead of using C/C++ style `int main()`? And their generics system is even more confusing, are they going to support a new form of generics or are they sticking with templates? And if they are going to add templates, why would they not add pretty much one of the best additions to modern C++ to Carbon, concepts?
- flohofwoe 2mo ago
  > why would a C++ successor language use `fn main()` instead of using C/C++ style `int main()` Apparently easier and faster parsing. Most modern language have arrived at the `fn bla(arg: ArgType): ResultType` form and I don't think they made that decision for purely aesthetical reasons.
  - vintagedave 2mo ago
    Even C++ has. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/cpp/trailing-return-type-in-cpp-11/ https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/cpp/trailing-return-type-in-cp...
  - lelanthran 2mo ago
    > Most modern language have arrived at the `fn bla(arg: ArgType): ResultType` form and I don't think they made that decision for purely aesthetical reasons. Not just modern, it's older than you think. Pascal function definition is `function bla(arg: ArgType): ResultType;`
- rpnx 2mo ago
  > no real language will spent 4 entire years and is still stuck in version 0.0.0-0. Strongly disagree. I too thought that it would be easy to implement a new language in 1-2 years. I started the current Quxlang codebase (under a different name) on Dec 27, 2022. In 2026, hundreds of commits and hundreds of thousands of lines of code later, I still don't have a feature complete language. I also rewrote the syntax, mainly because C++ parsing is a nightmare... Although my choice was very different...
flohofwoe 2mo ago
No, it's C :) And for me that's not even a hot take anymore, I switched back to C (specifically C99 and later) around 2017 after nearly 20 years of C++ as my main language, and I don't miss C++ the slightest. The hardest part was unlearning some bad C++ habits. The other 'behaviour change' for me was to open my mind to more programming languages. E.g. instead of trying to solve every problem with C++ I now pick a language that better matches the problem I want to solve (e.g. on one end of my language toolbox is C, on the other extreme end is Typescript, and somewhere in the middle are Zig, on Mac of course the occasional ObjC (not a fan of Swift tbh), and yes, sometimes even still modern C++ - in the end, the choice of language is mostly driven by the dependencies you need to use).
- lelanthran 2mo ago
  > No, it's C :) And for me that's not even a hot take anymore, For me, I switched away from C++ in 2008 or thereabouts. For anything that needs a higher level of abstraction than C, I'll use Lisp, Python, Java, C#[1], etc. You might enjoy (shameless plug to my own blog): https://www.lelanthran.com/chap9/content.html https://www.lelanthran.com/chap9/content.html https://www.lelanthran.com/chap13/content.html https://www.lelanthran.com/chap13/content.html ============================= [1] Although, C# has lately gone the way of becoming incomprehensible syntax-wise. I've seen this happen with C++ in the past, so not so sure I'll even use C# again.

HappMacDonald 2mo ago

> There is a good language buried underneath C++ somewhere Well.. "C".. though I wouldn't go so far as to call that a good language, either.

badpun 2mo ago
Lack of support for type-safe containers (need to be hack toghether via macros) and overreliance on macros in general (which are not IDE and debugger friendly) are two aspects of C that are off-putting for majority of people in 2026. That's even assuming you're willing to forego pointer/memory safety.
- flohofwoe 2mo ago
  Indeed, picking C doesn't make sense when you actually want to write C++ code in C ;)
- wasmperson 2mo ago
  > Lack of support for type-safe containers (need to be hack toghether via macros) Are templates really so much better than macros that the latter deserve to be called a "hack"? The following two examples are both type-safe and have roughly the same semantics and #LoC: Macros: // pair.h struct id(pair) { T a, b; }; static inline struct id(pair) id(make_pair)(T a, T b){ return (struct id(pair)){ .a = a, .b = b }; } #undef id #undef T // main.c #include <stdio.h> #define T int #define id(n) n ## _int #include "pair.h" int main(void){ struct pair_int p = make_pair_int(12, 13); printf("%d %d\n", p.a, p.b); } Templates: //pair.h template<typename T> struct pair { T a, b; }; template<typename T> pair<T> make_pair(T a, T b){ return (pair<T>){ .a = a, .b = b }; } //main.cpp #include <stdio.h> #include "pair.h" int main(void){ pair<int> p = make_pair(12, 13); printf("%d %d\n", p.a, p.b); }
YuechenLi 2mo ago
Well, Carbon would have been better off if they just made "C with `match` and sane error handling" instead of whatever it is they are building there over at Google. But still, I think C and C++ are honestly very different languages at this point and that you can't really call C++ a superset of C at all really.

throwaway2037 2mo ago

> involves making a completely new build system AND test framework from scratch because C++ tooling is just that bad In 2026, CMake is the standard build tool, and Google Test is usually a safe choice. There are many example projects on GitHub to learn how to use them.

YuechenLi 2mo ago
I think you misunderstood me. I did use them at first, but it took so much effort for me to set them up and config them for that particular application (Code only Skyrim modding) where I pretty much spent an entire day debugging and diagnosing crashes in CMakeLists.txt with the only info being random forum posts and Youtube videos on the subject without having written a single line of C++ that I decided to build my own instead.

locknitpicker 2mo ago

> In 2026, there really needs to be a REALLY good reason for people to use C++ for greenfield projects over using something like Rust, Go or C#. I don't think that professional developers go around mindlessly starting projects without evaluating their choices. The truth of the matter is that the whole industry has been picking C++ over alternatives for ages, to the point where C++ managed to get one of the most popular languages devised. Why do you think that happened? > I mean, I've made it work, but that pretty much involves making a completely new build system AND test framework from scratch (...) That says more about your competence than anything. I mean, CMake works so well that companies such as Jetbrains developed their C++ IDEs around it. But somehow you seem to struggle where everyone just dash towards coding. Why is that?

rpnx 2mo ago
The C++ environment for builds is kind of awful. It's usable, but extremely complicated, non-uniform, and rarely well implemented. CMake isn't a good build system, it's just the least bad one we have.

rpnx 2mo ago

Disagree. There are important things C++ gets "right" that languages like Go, C#, Java, and Rust get "wrong". It's difficult to impress these ideas on people who dislike C++, because they are largely not willing to learn C++. The C++ build environment is awful, I'll give you that much. I find people tend to fall into two camps, people who don't understand C++ because it's "too complicated" and people who like C++ (though acknowledge the syntax is a bit odd sometimes). Extraction of the essence of C++ is ongoing...