9 ms·

I think C models how the computer works a lot more closely than C++ (and no one would argue that C isn't carrying water out in the engineering world even today)

I think C models how the computer works a lot more closely than C++ (and no one would argue that C isn't carrying water out in the engineering world even today). IMO C++'s issue is precisely that it layers all of these leaky abstractions on top of the strict procedural model of C. For my money, developers are better off knowing two tools (c + some very high level language) rather than the spork which is C++.

jacquesm 17y ago
I remember 'cfront', when it first came out, and to this day I haven't really changed my mind on how I felt about it, it's a much too bloated language compared to the elegance of C. If 'C' would have had a decent native string type I think C++ might not have happened ;)
- aminuit 17y ago
  Are you suggesting that std::string, or as my not-so-friendly c++ compiler likes to call it std::basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>::basic_string(const _CharT*, const _Alloc&) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>, _Alloc = std::allocator<char>] is an improvement? :-)
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    No, not at all. I was thinking of strings the way Dennis Ritchie would have done it. I can see why they chose to omit it, but in retrospect I think it was a mistake. The problem they were faced with was that the language didn't include any 'runtime' at all the way they wrote it, a string package would have made it a must to have some runtime. Everything that is 'runtime' in C is in libraries, and everything that is 'core' is in the compiler.
  - fauigerzigerk 17y ago
    That's not what your compiler calls the string class. That's what it calls one particular constructor of the string class. This constructor lets you customize the way the string class allocates memory. Now I would like to see the equivalent constructor in your favorite language :)
- yters 17y ago
  c + lisp, in my case. nice way to write DSLs.
snprbob86 17y ago
The sad part is that there are a few good ideas in C++, so it is hard to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I use C++ like C with destructors, operator overloading, typed constants, and not much else.
- citizenparker 17y ago
  Thus proving the author's point.
  - lacker 17y ago
    But C with vector, string, hash_map, const&, destructors and scoped_ptr is a pretty good language! It's certainly better than plain C. It's just not as aesthetically pleasing that it sits inside the larger monstrosity that is C++.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      Thus proving the authors point even further. It is funny how everybody really seems to have their own favorite subset of C++.
      - scott_s 17y ago
        Most users also probably have their own favorite subset of Word.
        jacquesm 17y ago
        You've nailed it right on the head there though, when offered a bloated solution, people will 'subset', when offered something small and powerful people will customize.
        scott_s 17y ago
        You missed my point. Most users each probably have a different subset of Word.
omouse 17y ago
assembly more closely models how the computer works than anything...

jacquesm 17y ago

I remember 'cfront', when it first came out, and to this day I haven't really changed my mind on how I felt about it, it's a much too bloated language compared to the elegance of C. If 'C' would have had a decent native string type I think C++ might not have happened ;)

aminuit 17y ago
Are you suggesting that std::string, or as my not-so-friendly c++ compiler likes to call it std::basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>::basic_string(const _CharT*, const _Alloc&) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>, _Alloc = std::allocator<char>] is an improvement? :-)
- jacquesm 17y ago
  No, not at all. I was thinking of strings the way Dennis Ritchie would have done it. I can see why they chose to omit it, but in retrospect I think it was a mistake. The problem they were faced with was that the language didn't include any 'runtime' at all the way they wrote it, a string package would have made it a must to have some runtime. Everything that is 'runtime' in C is in libraries, and everything that is 'core' is in the compiler.
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  That's not what your compiler calls the string class. That's what it calls one particular constructor of the string class. This constructor lets you customize the way the string class allocates memory. Now I would like to see the equivalent constructor in your favorite language :)
yters 17y ago
c + lisp, in my case. nice way to write DSLs.

snprbob86 17y ago

The sad part is that there are a few good ideas in C++, so it is hard to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I use C++ like C with destructors, operator overloading, typed constants, and not much else.

citizenparker 17y ago
Thus proving the author's point.
- lacker 17y ago
  But C with vector, string, hash_map, const&, destructors and scoped_ptr is a pretty good language! It's certainly better than plain C. It's just not as aesthetically pleasing that it sits inside the larger monstrosity that is C++.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Thus proving the authors point even further. It is funny how everybody really seems to have their own favorite subset of C++.
    - scott_s 17y ago
      Most users also probably have their own favorite subset of Word.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        You've nailed it right on the head there though, when offered a bloated solution, people will 'subset', when offered something small and powerful people will customize.
        scott_s 17y ago
        You missed my point. Most users each probably have a different subset of Word.

omouse 17y ago

assembly more closely models how the computer works than anything...