5 ms·

> I don't think its complexity is a problem. C++ is complex in many ways which are unrelated to its core functionality. For example: most vexing parse, intege

> I don't think its complexity is a problem. C++ is complex in many ways which are unrelated to its core functionality. For example: most vexing parse, integer promotions, conflated language features (classes provide records, polymorphism, namespacing, encapsulation), header files, vector<bool>, the grammar is insanely complicated, et cetera. C++, like Common Lisp, is a standards effort which places more value on preserving the ability to run existing code than it does on removing language warts. Tools are now appearing like clang-format, clang-modernize, ReSharper, etc., but the equivalent tools have been available for other languages for quite some time now because those languages don't have the same complexity just at the syntactic level that C++ does. For example, Python has "2to3", and this was made with far fewer resources than "clang-modernize". Sure, C++ has richer semantics. But the syntax really is a maze, and if it weren't, we could have had our tools longer ago.

tragomaskhalos 12y ago
Well many of those issues are inherited from C, and Stroustrup has stated that compatibility with C was an absolute prerequisite otherwise C++ would have been stillborn. Given its position now, it's impossible to say that he was wrong, although I wonder if certain things could have been tidied up that would only have compilation-failed really bad code (e.g. it annoys me that you can pass a floating point value where an integer is expected).
- AlexandrB 12y ago
  While that's true, a lot of the complexity is self-inflicted. C++ tries to define syntaxes for its features in a C style which cripples a lot of features in unnecessary ways. For example, classes being kinda like a C struct instead of a separate syntax altogether. Honestly, even Objective-C is better in this regard because the Objective-C parts are well separated from the C parts instead of feeling wedged-in.
  - pmelendez 12y ago
    >Objective-C is better in this regard I would argue that's "better". As a result, Objective-C feels like an alien language for a C programmer. Although to be fair I don't think a core C programmer would move to either C++ or Objective-C unless (s)he has to (iOS support or legacy code). I think it is the same reason why C++ developers are not moving to Go anytime soon.
    - jokoon 12y ago
      I'd gladly move to a language that has the syntactic sugar of C++ (STL, lambdas, modules, and many other things) without the complexity (templates, inheritance, polymorphism). Go and Rust seems to have weird syntax differences with C and I don't understand the utility of those. The go function syntax looks a little bit hairy.

tragomaskhalos 12y ago

Well many of those issues are inherited from C, and Stroustrup has stated that compatibility with C was an absolute prerequisite otherwise C++ would have been stillborn. Given its position now, it's impossible to say that he was wrong, although I wonder if certain things could have been tidied up that would only have compilation-failed really bad code (e.g. it annoys me that you can pass a floating point value where an integer is expected).

AlexandrB 12y ago
While that's true, a lot of the complexity is self-inflicted. C++ tries to define syntaxes for its features in a C style which cripples a lot of features in unnecessary ways. For example, classes being kinda like a C struct instead of a separate syntax altogether. Honestly, even Objective-C is better in this regard because the Objective-C parts are well separated from the C parts instead of feeling wedged-in.
- pmelendez 12y ago
  >Objective-C is better in this regard I would argue that's "better". As a result, Objective-C feels like an alien language for a C programmer. Although to be fair I don't think a core C programmer would move to either C++ or Objective-C unless (s)he has to (iOS support or legacy code). I think it is the same reason why C++ developers are not moving to Go anytime soon.
  - jokoon 12y ago
    I'd gladly move to a language that has the syntactic sugar of C++ (STL, lambdas, modules, and many other things) without the complexity (templates, inheritance, polymorphism). Go and Rust seems to have weird syntax differences with C and I don't understand the utility of those. The go function syntax looks a little bit hairy.