4 ms·
> Not having that level of depth kinda worries me I see 2 domains where this level of depth matters: - performance (speed, resource consumption) - security I
by rakoo 12y ago
> Not having that level of depth kinda worries me
I see 2 domains where this level of depth matters:
- performance (speed, resource consumption)
- security
If you're not doing one of those, you shouldn't have to care about them, especially if this is your first programming language ever.
- eru 12y agoAnd C++ is horrible for security. By default it inherits C's no-checks-at-all, give-me-performance-or-give-me-death mentality.
- pjmlp 12y agoWhile true, at least modern C++ provides the tools to write secure code, if one wishes to do so. Whereas with bare C, there is no hope.
- eru 12y agoYou could add Valgrind and static analysis to your C. (You'd have to do something like this to C++, too.)
- pjmlp 12y agoValgrind is bandage sadly only available to GNU/Linux developers with lots of RAM to spare. Not fully available, if at all, when other systems need to be targeted. Fully agree with static analysis. My point is that at least with C++ you get the help of stronger type checking, RAII and automatic memory management via the available collections. But of course, the C compatibility is both an advantage in terms of helped adoption, but also a weight in terms of being able to write secure code.
- eru 12y agoAgreed, the C compatibility and piling off features on top is a serious legacy.