3 ms·
Sorry but I have to call bullshit on this. Even in addition to the passage I quoted which explicitly calls out compatibility with C as the biggest problem wit
by chetanahuja 13y ago
Sorry but I have to call bullshit on this.
Even in addition to the passage I quoted which explicitly calls out compatibility with C as the biggest problem with C++, the bulk of the rest of that article is directed towards resource management, starting with dismissing malloc as the worst possible API for memory allocation and going on to bitterly complain about various problems with pointers, global memory, side effects, for loops and any and everything that C++ inherits from C.
The overwhelming thrust of the article is that C++ needs to stop looking like C and has to start looking like Haskell or whatever other functional cool-aid is being drunk these days. If you are interpreting this blog post to be a call to programmers to go back to C, you're not reading the same words that I am.
- BruceIV 13y agoI think the author is saying that for what C++ is used for, its backwards compatibility with C is an anti-feature, because it's too low-level. That doesn't mean C is a bad language if you want or need that low level of control, just that modern systems programming should be using a higher level of abstraction which can be more efficiently optimized.
- banachtarski 13y agoCall bullshit? Please. Just say you disagree or something. Bullshit implies that I'm intentionally trying to feed you false information. And you've misunderstood. The line of reasoning you quote is about how C++ introduced new and delete to circumvent the follies of malloc and free. But the upshot was that even new and delete had pitfalls that developers fell prey to, so then came tr1's shared_ptr, followed by unique_ptr, which then necessitated, make_shared, etc. Where did I say this is a call to go back to C? Where did you learn how to read?