You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)
1–10 of 187 posts
Re: You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)
#2This decade old article describes an ancient and obsolete language (C++03 probably though some of the text suggests it might be C++98). It's not worth reading in 2020.
Modern C++ is a very different language though it can still almost completely interoperate with quite old code. C++11 and C++14 already addressed most of the things brought up, and contemporary C++ (obviously most code is not in it yet) even supports generic template functions with a straightforward syntax (i.e. use auto instead of ).
Re: You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)
#3This decade old article describes an ancient and obsolete language (C++03 probably though some of the text suggests it might be C++98). It's not worth reading in 2020. Modern C++ is a very different language though it can still almost completely interoperate with quite old code. C++11 and C++14 already addressed most of the things brought up, and contemporary C++ (obviously most code is not in it yet) even supports g…
The author also seems to really, really want C++ to be Python, despite that they're completely different languages for completely different purposes that make completely different sets of design tradeoffs.
In that respect, the author probably wouldn't be happy with modern C++, either. For example, C++ is never going to be a garbage-collected language (by default, at least). Modern C++ gives you better tools to deal with that, but the core design concerns that make C++ the way it is haven't gone away.
Re: You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)
#4This decade old article describes an ancient and obsolete language (C++03 probably though some of the text suggests it might be C++98). It's not worth reading in 2020. Modern C++ is a very different language though it can still almost completely interoperate with quite old code. C++11 and C++14 already addressed most of the things brought up, and contemporary C++ (obviously most code is not in it yet) even supports g…
The author also seems to really, really want C++ to be Python, despite that they're completely different languages for completely different purposes that make completely different sets of design tradeoffs. In that respect, the author probably wouldn't be happy with modern C++, either. For example, C++ is never going to be a garbage-collected language (by default, at least). Modern C++ gives you better tools to deal w…
I’m not aware any exist, but implementations of C++11 can have garbage collection by default. https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/cpp11-library#gc-abi:
”Garbage collection (automatic recycling of unreferenced regions of memory) is optional in C++; that is, a garbage collector is not a compulsory part of an implementation. However, C++11 provides a definition of what a GC can do if one is used and an ABI (Application Binary Interface) to help control its actions.”
Re: You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)
#5This decade old article describes an ancient and obsolete language (C++03 probably though some of the text suggests it might be C++98). It's not worth reading in 2020. Modern C++ is a very different language though it can still almost completely interoperate with quite old code. C++11 and C++14 already addressed most of the things brought up, and contemporary C++ (obviously most code is not in it yet) even supports g…
You wish. Unless I'm terribly misinformed, "modern C++" contains all of the features of the prior versions, which means that in the real world you have to learn and deal with all of it.
Re: You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)
#6I certainly agree that Modern C++ is vastly bett... actually this is just someone posting an old polemic and trying to stir resentment/controversy. IGNORE THIS CRITICSM OF C++... there are much better and more relevant ones which are worth taking seriously. This is not worth taking seriously.
(I wonder how many of these posters are real or fake. Given the karma and post of this poster I'm inclined to... wait. Last comment was in 2017. Yet... hasn't too many posts since that, I think it's about 4. Probably a bit out of the loop, buy maybe not malicious.)
Re: You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)
#7C++ is mostly an abstraction layer over C.
I would rather use C++ because i would have the option to use abstractions like std::map, std::string, std::vector, std::any etc. as they would save a lot of time and code complexity.
IMHO the worst thing about using C/C++ is getting other libraries to play with your project well even if you are using cmake or vcpkg, its not enough. You have to have solid knowledge of each operating system class to get everything working nicely over the long-term.
Re: You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)
#8This decade old article describes an ancient and obsolete language (C++03 probably though some of the text suggests it might be C++98). It's not worth reading in 2020. Modern C++ is a very different language though it can still almost completely interoperate with quite old code. C++11 and C++14 already addressed most of the things brought up, and contemporary C++ (obviously most code is not in it yet) even supports g…
You wish. Unless I'm terribly misinformed, "modern C++" contains all of the features of the prior versions, which means that in the real world you have to learn and deal with all of it .
That is the point of backwards compatibility. It is a feature, not a bug.
Whether that feature is a good idea or not and to what degree, is the question.
Re: You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)
#9Most of what the author complains about w.r.t callbacks is fixed with std::function and lambdas (member function pointer syntax is necessarily weird, because methods aren't just normal functions). I definitely don't miss the days of std::bind. Nowadays you just do something like
using Callback = std::function; // or whatever
Callback cbk = [&](int i) { return instance.method(i); };
Re: You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)
#10This decade old article describes an ancient and obsolete language (C++03 probably though some of the text suggests it might be C++98). It's not worth reading in 2020. Modern C++ is a very different language though it can still almost completely interoperate with quite old code. C++11 and C++14 already addressed most of the things brought up, and contemporary C++ (obviously most code is not in it yet) even supports g…
Sure, "if" all of that old code (how many billions of lines of code?) was rewritten and redeployed since.
If not, then... the above statement does not stand.