Care is needed to use C++ std:optional with non-trivial objects

Re:Care is needed to use C++ std:optional with non-trivial o... by jay-barronville on Friday January 13, 2023 @09:58AM (#34368569)

What a false equivalence. I don’t understand the need to pretend like C++ isn’t a minefield of complexity (especially compared to C). I don’t hate the language and C++ programmers tend to be some of the smartest programmers I know/encounter, but can we please not be deliberately obtuse here?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Care is needed to use C++ std:optional with non-trivial o... by kllrnohj on Friday January 13, 2023 @10:10AM (#34368765)

C is a minefield of complexity, though, why are you so desperate to pretend it isn't? The reality is that much of the language complexity of things like C++ or Rust is because the problem space is actually complex. C's language just doesn't help you with the inherent complexity. In fact it actively encourages bugs as a result. That's not a simple language, it's a bad one. It was fine for the constraints of the time, but it's not anymore.

C is easily the least defensible language choice of the commonly used languages. There's so many just obscenely better options it's not even funny. See also why even "intentionally C-like" languages like Zig are growing increasing complexity https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/7769 Or why things like D's betterC adds all the same "objectionable" stuff C++ does - RAII, operator overloading, etc...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Care is needed to use C++ std:optional with non-trivial o... by kadoban on Friday January 13, 2023 @11:41AM (#34370248)

> I don’t understand the need to pretend like C++ isn’t a minefield of complexity (especially compared to C).

C++ is a minefield. So is C though. Comparatively they're pretty much in the same boat for me. Sorry I guess?

[ Parent | on HN ]