Popular Myths about C++, Part 1

Thanks. Very short post though. What I have to say is, that C++11 and onwards had indeed made C++ much more approachable. I think Herb Sutter's talk on modern C++ is also worth a look. [0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHgp1ugKGM

Re: Popular Myths about C++, Part 1

#5

Post by ExpiredLink » Tue, Dec 09, 2014, 12:51 PM UTC

Good luck trying to understand C++ without C. The numerous C++ traps and pitfalls will just look mad to you. BTW, 'multi-paradigm' is an oxymoron. Not even Scala uses that concept any more.

Re: Popular Myths about C++, Part 1

#6

Post by pherocity_ » Tue, Dec 09, 2014, 12:54 PM UTC

I'm getting so tired of the word myth and how it's used so incorrectly. These may be misconceptions, but they are not myths. In truth, some of these are factually accurate and you're framing them as a misconception to drive a narrative. I can't help but consider that link-bait, even though structured differently, this would be a good article.

Re: Popular Myths about C++, Part 1

#7

Post by throwawayaway » Tue, Dec 09, 2014, 12:54 PM UTC

ExpiredLink wrote: post #5

Good luck trying to understand C++ without C. The numerous C++ traps and pitfalls will just look mad to you. BTW, 'multi-paradigm' is an oxymoron. Not even Scala uses that concept any more.

Scott Meyers says in Effective C++, view C++ as a confederation of languages: C, C++, the preprocessor and templates.

When some people say that when you are learning C++ you should not be exposed to C, I really have to disagree.

Re: Popular Myths about C++, Part 1

#8

Post by robert_tweed » Tue, Dec 09, 2014, 12:59 PM UTC

Myth 6: off-by-one errors are prevalent, even in articles about C++.

PS: Since HN is specially humour-impaired, and for the DNRTFA crowd: this is a complaint about the article's formatting.

Re: Popular Myths about C++, Part 1

#9

Post by stinos » Tue, Dec 09, 2014, 1:09 PM UTC

ExpiredLink wrote: post #5

Good luck trying to understand C++ without C. The numerous C++ traps and pitfalls will just look mad to you. BTW, 'multi-paradigm' is an oxymoron. Not even Scala uses that concept any more.

Good luck trying to understand C++ without C

look at it this way: suppose some alternate universe where there is no such thing as C, it just doesn't exist, nobody ever heard of it. Why would you not be able to completely master C++ that universe? The traps and pitfalls which you consider C, would then just be known as C++ (just as in reality they are C++ now, maybe not just always named as such). I think that's one thing what's being advocated here.

Anyway, what traps do you have in mind specifically?

Re: Popular Myths about C++, Part 1

#10

Post by Ragnarork » Tue, Dec 09, 2014, 1:11 PM UTC

I'm looking forward for the next part, as the last three myths are the ones I'm waiting for their answers, as they should be pretty interesting.

C++ has come a long way, and I really feel C++ 11 could very well replace Java as a learning language for computer science students (I don't think it'd be a good choice for an introduction to programming for non CS students), and I see many benefits in this, the biggests being IMHO C++ NOT being fully object-oriented, and the possibility to do either low- or high-level stuff, depending on what you're teaching.