Re:A Deeply Skeptical Look at C++0x
by timr on Thursday August 21, 2008 @04:01PM
(#283091)
" It was C, but with a pleasing syntax for class encapsulation and virtual function dispatch. I still write most of my C++ in that language."
Then you aren't using the language -- you're using C with classes. Which is fine, but don't make comments as though your usage patterns reflect the mainstream. C++ has moved well beyond C, and it's a different language now.
IMO, the roots of C++ in C are both its biggest strength, and its greatest liability. Sure, this ensures compatibility with a ton of old code, but this compatibility also adds lots of ugly warts to the language syntax. Moreover, to this day, lots of C coders are fooled into thinking that they're dealing with a language that's "C plus a few features", and they're invariably shocked when it turns out to be a totally different (and more powerful) programming environment. They then tend to complain loudly on the internet that the language is a disaster, without ever really trying to understand it for what it is.
Then you aren't using the language -- you're using C with classes. Which is fine, but don't make comments as though your usage patterns reflect the mainstream. C++ has moved well beyond C, and it's a different language now.
IMO, the roots of C++ in C are both its biggest strength, and its greatest liability. Sure, this ensures compatibility with a ton of old code, but this compatibility also adds lots of ugly warts to the language syntax. Moreover, to this day, lots of C coders are fooled into thinking that they're dealing with a language that's "C plus a few features", and they're invariably shocked when it turns out to be a totally different (and more powerful) programming environment. They then tend to complain loudly on the internet that the language is a disaster, without ever really trying to understand it for what it is.