Why I hate C++
-
But without those type of people we would never have put a man on the moon. Remember, it takes people with real jobs to get real things done.
Margaret Hamilton (scientist) - Wikipedia[^]
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Margaret Hamilton (scientist) - Wikipedia[^]
Software Zen:
delete this; -
some_array[value];
[] is over ridden and is commented as // find element matching _Keyval or insert with default mapped Which actually means 'insert it at the end of the list'. Why not a function called 'add_to_map_at_end'? Christ I hate C++ sometimes, it is so up its arse pointless at times.
-
some_array[value];
[] is over ridden and is commented as // find element matching _Keyval or insert with default mapped Which actually means 'insert it at the end of the list'. Why not a function called 'add_to_map_at_end'? Christ I hate C++ sometimes, it is so up its arse pointless at times.
Don't blame the language or its standard library for your inability to RTFM. From std::map::operator[] - cppreference.com: operator[] is non-const because it inserts the key if it doesn't exist.
-
Don't blame the language or its standard library for your inability to RTFM. From std::map::operator[] - cppreference.com: operator[] is non-const because it inserts the key if it doesn't exist.
No shit it inserts it, I just said that. RTFOT FFS.
-
some_array[value];
[] is over ridden and is commented as // find element matching _Keyval or insert with default mapped Which actually means 'insert it at the end of the list'. Why not a function called 'add_to_map_at_end'? Christ I hate C++ sometimes, it is so up its arse pointless at times.
Why I don't hate the C++ language I have found it to be overly arcane with its syntax...
Steve Naidamast Sr. Software Engineer Black Falcon Software, Inc. blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
-
I have come across some right howlers in this code base. Anyway, C++, of all the languages I have used, from ADA, to Prolog, through VB and Java, allows this kind of sillyness. So it is for that that I condemn it. And personally I dont see that OO is a massive benefit over a procedural language except in specific instances. And in fact it is often worse. Particularly in control code, code that is not data centric, but process centric.
-
If you had ever had the experience of building a large software project using non-OO code, you would sing a different tune.
You can build a large project from procedural code just as well, it all depends on the architecture you design. Look at the WIndows kernel. All built in C (with a bit of assembler in the HAL)
-
You are pretty close to the perfect answer.... C++ is as sensible or as stupid and daft as you want it to be. Unfortunately not helped by the C++ ISO bods adding more and more different ways to make it more complicated without adding very much to real C++ users. The idea of less is more is lost on them. Could do with minimum C++ with a lot of the bad and new stuff removed. As for the Template library - great functionality but let down by the ludicrous syntax etc.
Yes, I still keep the AT&T C++ book on my desk. A slim volume describing a nice language which was an (IMO) elegant OO extension to 'C'. Now you can look at valid C++ syntax that looks like a cat walked across the keyboard. They seem to be trying to put every feature of every other language into C++ syntax and comprehensibility be damned.
-
You can build a large project from procedural code just as well, it all depends on the architecture you design. Look at the WIndows kernel. All built in C (with a bit of assembler in the HAL)
And have you, personally, built a million-line code-base in purely procedural code? In C, perhaps? If you have done so, and have done the same using an object-oriented language, then you have standing to dismiss object oriented programming as no better than procedural. Merely asserting that it is possible is not a very strong claim. Pointing to 30-year-old code like the Windows Kernel, that was developed before the broad availability of OO languages is meaningless.
-
And have you, personally, built a million-line code-base in purely procedural code? In C, perhaps? If you have done so, and have done the same using an object-oriented language, then you have standing to dismiss object oriented programming as no better than procedural. Merely asserting that it is possible is not a very strong claim. Pointing to 30-year-old code like the Windows Kernel, that was developed before the broad availability of OO languages is meaningless.
Ah, so because I havnt done it it isnt true. OK, gotcha! ;)
SeattleC++ wrote:
30-year-old code like the Windows Kernel,
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: NT is old, 2000 was modified to include PnP and power handling. Windows 10 is even more recent.
-
Why reference the code and what is it you are requesting?
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
Seems to be something like that. Anyway, reading my_array[value]; and that is it, is damn confusiing!