You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by jfkebwjsbx on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @06:57PM (#22428870)

That is the point of backwards compatibility. It is a feature, not a bug.

Whether that feature is a good idea or not and to what degree, is the question.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by downerending on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @07:24PM (#22429057)

I'm not saying it's a bug. I'm saying that backwards compatibility means that you still have to deal with all of the historic flaws of the language today.

The article is indeed still relevant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by UncleMeat on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @07:47PM (#22429229)

But that’s true for literally everything. If you have a cpp code base and are building new stuff in rust to interop then you still have legacy cpp code even though rust has fewer problems.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by KptMarchewa on Thursday February 27, 2020 @06:34AM (#22432390)

Not really. Legacy stuff can be contained. For example, you could specify language version level in file and it would disable removed/deprecated stuff.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by UncleMeat on Thursday February 27, 2020 @01:13PM (#22435974)

Linters can prevent you from using outdated C++ constructs with ease.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by Quekid5 on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @07:03PM (#22428914)

... but it's worth considering that this is a 'question' from 2010. Just saying...

[ Parent | on HN ]