Please wait...
I suppose.
Although I feel I could go the other way on this, in that it feels there's something particularly 'simple' in an array of ints vs. an array of objects, or an array of pointers to objects.
Functionally, though, I expect 'simple' and 'primitive' probably ought to have the same meaning.
Heh. Unless you're now ready to have the "what does it compile down to" discussion,
it's just games with words.
Ford touched on some of this elsewhere, although he focused on some othe rlanguage, I think.
The committee has been trying to make C++ easier to use for a while now, and these last few iterations of the language have primarily been geared to making the language friendlier to use.
I have to admit, though, I didn't know about some of these changes. Interesting.
The committee has been trying to make C++ easier to use for a while
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA HAAAA HAAAA
Apr 21 2015 8:03pm from LoanShark @uncnsrdThe committee has been trying to make C++ easier to use for a while
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA HAAAA HAAAA
Yeah, it's amusing to consider a committee making anything work better.
While its copying features, using it looks clearly like character soup since its bolted onto the existing syntax.
The python originals are clearly to prefer.
Heh, well, C++ has always been 'bolting' things onto an existing syntax, since they don't want to break existing code any more than possible.
Heh, well, C++ has always been 'bolting' things onto an existing
syntax, since they don't want to break existing code any more than
possible.
They break existing code all the time! Templates are the big offender. They're not simple like LISP hygeinic macros or Java generics (which are not templates at all, but do occupy a similar niche)
Does changes to the language break existing code, or do vendors with poor interpretations of the standard who fix thsoe interpretations lead to breaking code when programmers inadvertently program not to the standard, but to the compiler?
No chin, no legs. It doesn't matter, because C++ is too complex to get right. (And I don't know the actual answer to the question, but I suppose there are probably a lot of grey area that got clarified in the latest standard.)
You take some fuck, and shit shit, some fuck, and some shit you've got a fuck shit stack. A fuck shit stack.
C++ was intended to be C, with added features to make it more object-oriented.
It grew beyond that, I guess, as more people wanted it to handle more stuff.
Or because it was handled in a shit way, I guess.
Although, really, how else would someone have done it? It was designed the way it was because they wanted to maintain backwards compatibility. You could perhaps say that C was a shit language, and a terrible base upon which to build an oo language.
OTOH, a lot of people wrote a lot of stuff in C++ over a long period of time, and continue to do so today, despite the ridiculous learning curve and occasional updates to the standard.
If less so than before. The latest crop of software engineers prefer C# and Java from what I can see. Not C, not C++.
Anyway, I wrote what I wrote earlier because backwards compatibility was always a big deal to C++ as a language.
It just sucks that it suffers a reputation hit (to its deservedly already tarnished reputation) for compiler faults.
Heh... for a similar concept, every operating system is shit today because nobody has the guts to do it all over again from scratch and fix all the ways OSes suck.
Thu Apr 23 2015 11:59:19 AM EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored
You take some fuck, and shit shit, some fuck, and some shit you've got a fuck shit stack. A fuck shit stack.
This is also a good take-away :-)
Thu Apr 23 2015 12:42:41 PM EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored
C++ was intended to be C, with added features to make it more object-oriented.
It grew beyond that,......The latest crop of software engineers prefer C# and Java from what I can see. Not C, not C++.
I agree on the first point. The second suggests that any offshoot is no based on C. Python is itself "written in C".
I feel that C and C based languages will die off with the herd that is using them. Popular for now, but it will fade as the new crop finds a new way forward. I hate to think of what they give up, but then again I am just being an old fool.
The portability factor only lived on as long as someone would have the gumption to write a C compiler for the latest processor / micro. Granted, given the ease with which we can peek at the innards / write our own compiler for the latest processor has probably passed us by, so too has the naiveté of understanding the "whole stack" of what we are doing.
I know that most of the folks on Uncensored keep up with advances in systems architecture, but how long can you do so?
C will eventually become (or has already become) just a language in which "system software" is written. The higher level alternatives have become so useful, and the performance penalty for running them slim enough, that writing applications in them is an obvious choice.
Even I am finding myself drawn to the "dark side." I spent a couple of months working almost exclusively in Python while building a network automation layer for a cloud product. Over this past weekend I had some time to hack on Citadel again, and I found myself frustrated having to deal with manual memory management.
However, there will always be people interested in writing system software, so C will live on. Maybe we'll even get lucky and the abomination known as C++ will die off, with system software being written in C and application software being written in higher level languages.
By the way, I don't speak for everyone (I only speak for the people who are sensible --- <grin>) but I'd *much* rather be developing in Python or JavaScript than in C# or Java.