C++ – From goto to std::transform

Re:C++ – From goto to std::transform by nitrogen on Friday April 11, 2014 @10:10AM (#7572910)

Dear HN,

Is it really necessary to start another language war thread?

Sincerely, a happy C developer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++ – From goto to std::transform by pjmlp on Friday April 11, 2014 @10:59AM (#7573228)

I am not starting a another language war.

Just stating the fact that when someone posts "C++ is horrible because of X", that X is either also available in "ANSI C", caused by compatibility with C semantics or compatibility with C toolchain.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++ – From goto to std::transform by nitrogen on Friday April 11, 2014 @05:06PM (#7575646)

How about this one: "C++ is horrible because of implicit copy constructors"? That one's not in C :-).

The newest additions to C++ for functional programming and automatic typing are quite intriguing. Blaming everything wrong with C++ on C is as disingenuous as labeling everything about C++ as wrong because one thing about it is wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++ – From goto to std::transform by pjmlp on Saturday April 12, 2014 @02:03AM (#7577124)

> How about this one: "C++ is horrible because of implicit copy constructors"? That one's not in C :-).

I also mentioned compatibility with C semantics.

"The Design and Evolution of C++" contains lots of such examples.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++ – From goto to std::transform by nitrogen on Saturday April 12, 2014 @02:52AM (#7577193)

C doesn't implicitly convert one struct into another. Why implicitly convert one class into another just because I created a constructor in one class that takes the other class as a parameter? The "explicit" keyword should have been "implicit", with the default behavior reversed.

[ Parent | on HN ]