Re:C++11 FAQ
by huhtenberg on Thursday January 26, 2017 @10:33AM
(#13492116)
> C++ is multi-paradigm
Yep, here it is - http://i.imgur.com/1oGHYqi.jpg :)
Re:C++11 FAQ
by saalweachter on Thursday January 26, 2017 @10:40AM
(#13492190)
Just out of curiosity, which era of C++ did you like? C++98, or pre-Standard C++?
At least since C++98, C++ has always had the "multi-paradigm problem". If you try to use every language feature and paradigm C++ has to offer, you are going to suffer. Writing and maintaining a large C++ codebase has always required restricting yourself to a subset of the language.
How well has Perl fared? How about Lisp and Scala that are multi-paradigm, how well are they doing?
Re:C++11 FAQ
by GFK_of_xmaspast on Thursday January 26, 2017 @11:16AM
(#13492567)
Perl was doing just fine until they fell in the perl6 hole and stagnated. Scala's getting its data science niche, and lisp has a lot more problems than just being multi-paradigm.
> Perl was doing just fine until they fell in the perl6 hole and stagnate
i.e. backward compatibility is king.
Paraphrasing Stroustrup, there are two kinds of languages, those that are full of old cruft and those that are too green to have been proven in the field.
Re:C++11 FAQ
by GFK_of_xmaspast on Thursday January 26, 2017 @12:53PM
(#13493508)
The perl6 problem wasn't 'backward compatibility', the perl6 problem was 'this thing doesn't exist at all but it's sucking up all the momentum.'
Yes it takes a certain openness of mind and a long learning curve. But then, you get to operate at a level that other platforms can only dream.
In full disclosure, I do NOT consider myself a good C++ programmer. But I've always respected the fact that it's one environment which fosters using the whole toolbox instead of just a hammer... no matter how elegant that hammer may be. In that respect, it reminds me a lot of Perl.