Re:C++17 – better than you might think
by tomjakubowski on Thursday December 29, 2016 @09:01AM
(#13277268)
> I never, ever hear this as a priority from fellow C++ programmers. It's always just on HN.
These aren't mutually exclusive groups. I'm a professional C++ programmer posting on HN to say that C++ is terrible, even when you can somehow confine yourself to "modern C++" -- presumably because you're free from legacy code originally written in the 00s, or earlier!
C++11 (and to some extent C++14) made C++ less awful, but it's still a turd. And even many of the best features of C++11, like move semantics, are blown away by their equivalents in Rust. By the way, even whenever concepts and concepts finally land (I've given up now), C++ templates are still going to miles behind Rust's trait-based generics in ease of use and readability.
These aren't mutually exclusive groups. I'm a professional C++ programmer posting on HN to say that C++ is terrible, even when you can somehow confine yourself to "modern C++" -- presumably because you're free from legacy code originally written in the 00s, or earlier!
C++11 (and to some extent C++14) made C++ less awful, but it's still a turd. And even many of the best features of C++11, like move semantics, are blown away by their equivalents in Rust. By the way, even whenever concepts and concepts finally land (I've given up now), C++ templates are still going to miles behind Rust's trait-based generics in ease of use and readability.