The blog post was about a possible bug in the syntax/standard itself. I pointed out that all languages have weird edge cases and buggy syntax.

If you want to discuss programming languages in general then that is a totally separate discussion. C++ is not in the same class of languages as JS or Ruby, so why would you use them interchangeably? C++ is meant for low level system programming, when performance or size are constraints on the problem you're trying to solve. The problem domain itself entails a certain amount of care.

Also, JS and Ruby are indeed just as hard to master as C++. Heck even Bash is hard to master. Case in point.

http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/code-golf

I agree with most of your post. The domain of C++ and JS are widely apart. Comparing C++ and JS is hardly justified, IMHO. However if we were to compare them:

> Also, JS and Ruby are indeed just as hard to master as C++.

I have to call Bull on this part, with apologies for the tone (but I don't know any better way to put it). How on earth you can claim JS is harder than C++? C++ is doubtlessly a much more complicated language than JS, and for good reasons (albeit a good portion of those are historical). However sub-optimal JS is (for it was designed with hardly any gestation time and on a ridiculously tight schedule), it can be taught, almost completely in a matter of hours (sans the DOM). Add a couple more hours for teaching browser security models and pointers on where to find docs for everything JS.

>How on earth you can claim JS is harder than C++?

Because I didn't? Please re-read. I said any language is just as hard to master since the earlier context was obscure dark corners of C++ syntax (Which was the general topic of the article. The vast majority of C++ programmers would never have run into that syntax bug). JS has obscure syntax and my argument is that you need to expend equal effort to master it.

My comment started with "C++ FAQs are full of massively complex conundrums like this for problems you just don't get in other languages" so I was making a general comment prompted by the article.

> C++ is meant for low level system programming, when performance or size are constraints on the problem you're trying to solve. The problem domain itself entails a certain amount of care.

Agree with this but my view is you should avoid C++ at all costs if practical because of its productivity and bug risk impacts compared to other solutions. If low level is required though your options are limited.

> Also, JS and Ruby are indeed just as hard to master as C++.

We'll have to agree to disagree then because C++ is an order of magnitude more complex in my eyes. Code golf isn't a good metric to me as that's all about using obscure tricks to write as few characters as possible which isn't how you code normally. I would rather measure how easy it is to write code with minimal bugs and C++ gives you a million ways to shoot yourself in the foot.

IMO, Code golf is an excellent metric. Only someone who masters a language and knows its weird edge cases and obscure syntax can make sense of the answers, or attempt to present an answer themselves. If writing code with minimal bugs is your goal, then you don't need to master the language at all. So, I don't even know what we're arguing about. Looks like we agree on most things. So lemme ask you, can you name books (or courses) that teach C++, and devote a significant chunk (or any) of the material to cover such arcane syntax topics? Yes, C++ is complex, because the underlying hardware is complex - and you want to get as close to the hardware as possible. After all, you're basically signing up to repair and service the car yourself, versus bringing it in at the dealership.

> IMO, Code golf is an excellent metric. Only someone who masters a language and knows its weird edge cases and obscure syntax can make sense of the answers, or attempt to present an answer themselves.

To me, mastering a language is knowing how to use it in a way to solve a problem in the fastest development time with minimal bugs and maintainable code which does not match up with code golf. C++ gives you lots of ways to introduce weird bugs which isn't something code golf demonstrates.

> So lemme ask you, can you name books (or courses) that teach C++, and devote a significant chunk (or any) of the material to cover such arcane syntax topics?

The C++ Programming Language book and Effective Modern C++ are good and they're full of "don't do this or something bad will happen!" parts. I'm not really concerned about a few arcane syntax problems but I am concerned that C++ has a lot of undefined behaviour that lets you shoot yourself in the foot in a way that other languages avoid.

I really find Python harder to master than C++: in C++ you sometimes have to grapple with syntax and development tools, but after it's resolved, your program works predictably, just don't forget to enable debug symbols and core dumps in release builds. Resources are allocated and freed deterministically, the memory requirements are often obvious from code down to some additive, not multiplicative, constant.

Granted, I mostly work on embedded image processing systems, but would use C++ in any context where long-running processes and/or low latencies are required.

On a more subjective note, I'm waiting for .NET Core to mature a bit, since C# seems to have a balanced selection of features from managed and native worlds, plus a very pleasant syntax and tool support.