5 ms·

What a strange language, that so much sage wisdom involves what parts of it you shouldn't use. (Former C++ programmer, a long time ago, before the "don't use th

by a3n 11y ago

What a strange language, that so much sage wisdom involves what parts of it you shouldn't use. (Former C++ programmer, a long time ago, before the "don't use these parts" advice became a thing.)

derefr 11y ago
There was a post here recently, explaining type systems are effectively about restricting you from encoding nonsensical constructions. C is ASM with the ability to encode some nonsensical ASM instruction-sequences removed, etc. The weird thing about C++—and the reason it didn't just absorb/replace C—is that it gives you the ability to encode strictly more nonsensical things than C does. In that sense, C looks more like the descendant of C++ than the other way around!
- pjmlp 11y ago
  > The weird thing about C++—and the reason it didn't just absorb/replace C—is that it gives you the ability to encode strictly more nonsensical things than C does. In that sense, C looks more like the descendant of C++ than the other way around! Yet the most famous current C compilers are all written in C++. If it wasn't the rise of open source and its community attachment to C, mainly in GNU and BSD circles, C would have been long replaced except for the embedded space.
gridspy 11y ago
Yes, it shares that 'feature' in common with JavaScript.
- bajsejohannes 11y ago
  No, actually, it doesn't. C++ is a huge language, javascript is a relativly small one. I know it's funny to compare the size of "Javascript the good parts" with "Javascript the definitive guide", but that's can be attributed to writing style more than percentage of language covered.
  - MaulingMonkey 11y ago
    > No, actually, it doesn't. Perhaps less in what features to avoid, but there's plenty of hidden gotchas to avoid in JavaScript still. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et8xNAc2ic8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et8xNAc2ic8 https://dorey.github.io/JavaScript-Equality-Table/ https://dorey.github.io/JavaScript-Equality-Table/ > C++ is a huge language, javascript is a relativly small one. C++'s ISO/IEC 14882:2003 weighs in at 786 pages, compared to ECMA-262 (5.1 Edition)'s 258 pages (measuring by PDF reader). A ~3x difference, but not quite the order of magnitude I'd expect from huge vs small.
    - furyofantares 11y ago
      And we share 50% of our DNA with a tree... That's not meant to be snarky, but what's is the minimum size of a language spec? I don't know the answer, but I'd think the delta over that would be the better comparison. For example if you can't really spec a language in less than 200 pages then C++'s spec is more like 10 times as big as JavaScript.
      - bremac 11y ago
        Scheme has the smallest (useful) language specs that I know of. For example, R5RS is 48 pages (44 if you exclude the back matter.)
        waps 11y ago
        Here is one of the smallest useful (ie. turing complete) language's full specification : > Subtract and branch if not equal to zero[edit] > The SBNZ a,b,c,d instruction ("Subtract and Branch if Not equal to Zero") subtracts the contents at address a from the contents at address b, stores the result at address c, and then, if the result is not 0, transfers control to address d (if the result is equal zero, execution proceeds to the next instruction in sequence). This is all of it.
        MaulingMonkey 11y ago
        I imagine Brainfuck could be reasonably specced in around 5-10 pages, based on the size of the Wikipedia description. EDIT: Said Wikipedia page was sufficiently detailed for me to implement a Brainfuck -> MSIL compiler without additional external references, which I was able to verify worked with a Mandelbrot renderer.
- bkjelden 11y ago
  The big thing javascript has going for it are the browser's dev tools, though. I've done both and hunting things down in chrome's dev tools is orders of magnitude easier than figuring out what is going on in your c++.
vitaut 11y ago
With great power comes great responsibility.

by a3n 11y ago

What a strange language, that so much sage wisdom involves what parts of it you shouldn't use. (Former C++ programmer, a long time ago, before the "don't use these parts" advice became a thing.)

derefr 11y ago

There was a post here recently, explaining type systems are effectively about restricting you from encoding nonsensical constructions. C is ASM with the ability to encode some nonsensical ASM instruction-sequences removed, etc. The weird thing about C++—and the reason it didn't just absorb/replace C—is that it gives you the ability to encode strictly more nonsensical things than C does. In that sense, C looks more like the descendant of C++ than the other way around!

pjmlp 11y ago
> The weird thing about C++—and the reason it didn't just absorb/replace C—is that it gives you the ability to encode strictly more nonsensical things than C does. In that sense, C looks more like the descendant of C++ than the other way around! Yet the most famous current C compilers are all written in C++. If it wasn't the rise of open source and its community attachment to C, mainly in GNU and BSD circles, C would have been long replaced except for the embedded space.

gridspy 11y ago

Yes, it shares that 'feature' in common with JavaScript.

bajsejohannes 11y ago
No, actually, it doesn't. C++ is a huge language, javascript is a relativly small one. I know it's funny to compare the size of "Javascript the good parts" with "Javascript the definitive guide", but that's can be attributed to writing style more than percentage of language covered.
- MaulingMonkey 11y ago
  > No, actually, it doesn't. Perhaps less in what features to avoid, but there's plenty of hidden gotchas to avoid in JavaScript still. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et8xNAc2ic8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et8xNAc2ic8 https://dorey.github.io/JavaScript-Equality-Table/ https://dorey.github.io/JavaScript-Equality-Table/ > C++ is a huge language, javascript is a relativly small one. C++'s ISO/IEC 14882:2003 weighs in at 786 pages, compared to ECMA-262 (5.1 Edition)'s 258 pages (measuring by PDF reader). A ~3x difference, but not quite the order of magnitude I'd expect from huge vs small.
  - furyofantares 11y ago
    And we share 50% of our DNA with a tree... That's not meant to be snarky, but what's is the minimum size of a language spec? I don't know the answer, but I'd think the delta over that would be the better comparison. For example if you can't really spec a language in less than 200 pages then C++'s spec is more like 10 times as big as JavaScript.
    - bremac 11y ago
      Scheme has the smallest (useful) language specs that I know of. For example, R5RS is 48 pages (44 if you exclude the back matter.)
      - waps 11y ago
        Here is one of the smallest useful (ie. turing complete) language's full specification : > Subtract and branch if not equal to zero[edit] > The SBNZ a,b,c,d instruction ("Subtract and Branch if Not equal to Zero") subtracts the contents at address a from the contents at address b, stores the result at address c, and then, if the result is not 0, transfers control to address d (if the result is equal zero, execution proceeds to the next instruction in sequence). This is all of it.
      - MaulingMonkey 11y ago
        I imagine Brainfuck could be reasonably specced in around 5-10 pages, based on the size of the Wikipedia description. EDIT: Said Wikipedia page was sufficiently detailed for me to implement a Brainfuck -> MSIL compiler without additional external references, which I was able to verify worked with a Mandelbrot renderer.
bkjelden 11y ago
The big thing javascript has going for it are the browser's dev tools, though. I've done both and hunting things down in chrome's dev tools is orders of magnitude easier than figuring out what is going on in your c++.

vitaut 11y ago

With great power comes great responsibility.