11–20 of 173 posts
C++ is my favourite programming language precisely because one of its main designers is so sensible.
Remember the Vasa paper happened for a reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah mine too until Rust. But part of that sensibleness was making it backwards compatible with C, which entails a mountain of inherited design mistakes. I wonder what his blank slate language would have looked like.
C++ is not backwards compatible with C. It’s mostly compatible, but it’s not completely compatible like say Objective C which is a strict superset of C.
C++ is my favourite programming language precisely because one of its main designers is so sensible.
Until C++98 came to be, nowadays, regardless of how sensible Bjarne Stroustoup happens to be, his opinion is a vote among 300 or so. Remember the Vasa paper happened for a reason.
Let's also not forget this: https://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/I_did_it_for_you_all
I probably have a few confessions to make myself...
But the royalties are just too good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
C++ is not backwards compatible with C. It’s mostly compatible, but it’s not completely compatible like say Objective C which is a strict superset of C.
honestly, no one cares about splitting that hair. Most valid C programs will compile in C++ and believe it or not, binary logic is not the only logic humans are capable of.
Let's also not forget this: https://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/I_did_it_for_you_all
That's a very nice find. I love that kind of candor about motivations on why software is written the way it is written. ;) I probably have a few confessions to make myself... But the royalties are just too good.
(I hope you don't think it's genuine)
Language design is a curious mixture of grand ideas and fiddly details I hadn't heard this last one before, but it's SO right ... I always wondered why JS and PHP and Perl got so many details "wrong" (e.g. with Perl, one definition of "wrong" is that Perl 6 / Raku didn't make the same design choice) Turns out there's an avalanche of details, and they interact in many ways! Python did better, but I strongly argue both…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah mine too until Rust. But part of that sensibleness was making it backwards compatible with C, which entails a mountain of inherited design mistakes. I wonder what his blank slate language would have looked like.
C++ is not backwards compatible with C. It’s mostly compatible, but it’s not completely compatible like say Objective C which is a strict superset of C.
Actually you need `-Wpedantic` to even get a warning for both of those. (And `-std=c++17` since designated initialisers are actually in C++20.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very nice find. I love that kind of candor about motivations on why software is written the way it is written. ;) I probably have a few confessions to make myself... But the royalties are just too good.
I don't find it at all insightful or humorous. (I hope you don't think it's genuine)
Humor isn't an absolute. I find it funny because if Stroustrup had tried he probably couldn't have made a language with more footguns, there are so many things in there that require a lot of discipline not to use (or overuse). At the same time it was a supremely useful language that allowed for much better abstraction than C ever did but it definitely came with a price.
> (I hope you don't think it's genuine)
Wait, what, that wasn't real???
"Actually I made up the term "object-oriented", and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind."