Practical Guide to Bare Metal C++

Re:Practical Guide to Bare Metal C++ by pjmlp on Thursday July 21, 2016 @02:39PM (#12139011)

Mostly because the "C with classes" crowd tend to be C developers dragged into using a C++ compiler.

Personally I like to turn everything on, but I also understand there are use-cases where it isn't possible.

My first C++ compiler was Turbo C++ 1.0 for MS-DOS, so I also used this kind of bare metal programming back in the day.

What I don't like is "C with classes" which throws away all the safety mechanisms that C++ offers over C, to the point the code could be compiled with a C compiler.

However the advices presented in the "Practical Guide to Bare Metal C++" look quite good.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Practical Guide to Bare Metal C++ by evincarofautumn on Friday July 22, 2016 @12:31AM (#12141704)

There’s something to be said for only using those features of C++ that you really need, if not because the platform demands it, then at least because it goes easier on the language-lawyering part of the brain.

I for one am perfectly happy with “C with destructors and templates”. The usual criticism of “C with classes” is levelled at a specific kind of code that’s neither particularly good C++ nor particularly good C. But not all “C with classes” is necessarily that way.

[ Parent | on HN ]