3 ms·

IMHO 2009 C++ is tailored for generic programming and meta programming That was not the design goal and it was not how C++ was marketed by Stroustrup or anyone

IMHO 2009 C++ is tailored for generic programming and meta programming That was not the design goal and it was not how C++ was marketed by Stroustrup or anyone else. You cannot shift the blame onto people that are using the language as it was intended and marketed. The blame lies with C++. That it seems to be perfect for generic and meta programming is nice, but an unintentional side effect. However, what use are generic and meta programming without a sane range of 'regular' programming capabilities?

chancho 17y ago
what use are generic and meta programming without a sane range of 'regular' programming capabilities? C++ contains C. How can it not contain a sane range of 'regular' programming capabilities? (Of course in this context, 'regular programming capabilities' does not refer to web apps so let's just avoid that whole argument and take for granted that C is a useful language.) This is a great instance of two (maybe 3) arguments against C++ canceling each other out: On the one hand, C++ sucks because it's wed to C and inherits all it's legacy warts. Anyway, C is a better C++ because it's simpler. And yet, as you claim, C++ offer's no useful core of functionality on which layer all the generic templately goodness.
- Confusion 17y ago
  C++ contains C. Unfortunately, you cannot just use C++ as if it were C, because some of these FQA's will still trip you up. The point of this FQA and other recents C++ criticisms is that you have to choose a specific subset and still be wary of all 'unexpected' things that happen in that subset.
  - blub 17y ago
    What FQA's will trip you up if you want to compile "clean C" (i.e: the C and C++ subset)?
blub 17y ago
C++ is marketed by Stroustrup as a multi-paradigm programming language and this was its design goal from the beginning. Generic programming was a design goal, not a side effect. Regular programming capabilities are abundant with the CRT and OOP. In short, all your statements are incorrect.
- Confusion 17y ago
  The fact that it happens to be perfect for generic programming is pure chance. It could have been botched like many of the other features. It had too many design goals, that is part of the point. It is not abundant with regular programming capabilities: the main point of the arguments against C++ is that the regular capabilities are infested by problems from the more advanced features. Marketing something as multi-paradigm language implies that you can also use it for plain and simple things. Hell, you can even use Java for simple things. The post I responded to denied that. You are simply trying to prove my statements incorrect, without looking at the context in which they were made: the parent post and the specific sorts of criticism leveled against C++.

chancho 17y ago

what use are generic and meta programming without a sane range of 'regular' programming capabilities? C++ contains C. How can it not contain a sane range of 'regular' programming capabilities? (Of course in this context, 'regular programming capabilities' does not refer to web apps so let's just avoid that whole argument and take for granted that C is a useful language.) This is a great instance of two (maybe 3) arguments against C++ canceling each other out: On the one hand, C++ sucks because it's wed to C and inherits all it's legacy warts. Anyway, C is a better C++ because it's simpler. And yet, as you claim, C++ offer's no useful core of functionality on which layer all the generic templately goodness.

Confusion 17y ago
C++ contains C. Unfortunately, you cannot just use C++ as if it were C, because some of these FQA's will still trip you up. The point of this FQA and other recents C++ criticisms is that you have to choose a specific subset and still be wary of all 'unexpected' things that happen in that subset.
- blub 17y ago
  What FQA's will trip you up if you want to compile "clean C" (i.e: the C and C++ subset)?

blub 17y ago

C++ is marketed by Stroustrup as a multi-paradigm programming language and this was its design goal from the beginning. Generic programming was a design goal, not a side effect. Regular programming capabilities are abundant with the CRT and OOP. In short, all your statements are incorrect.

Confusion 17y ago
The fact that it happens to be perfect for generic programming is pure chance. It could have been botched like many of the other features. It had too many design goals, that is part of the point. It is not abundant with regular programming capabilities: the main point of the arguments against C++ is that the regular capabilities are infested by problems from the more advanced features. Marketing something as multi-paradigm language implies that you can also use it for plain and simple things. Hell, you can even use Java for simple things. The post I responded to denied that. You are simply trying to prove my statements incorrect, without looking at the context in which they were made: the parent post and the specific sorts of criticism leveled against C++.