I remember working on a small in-house C++ library with a colleague.

Being mostly a C programmer, my code in C++ was basically (as he coined it) fancy-C. Then he rewrote my code in "the C++ way," after which the code became completely opaque to me.

My initial mistake was that I expected C++ to be like (or similar to) C, a mistake I believe many of us make. C++ is a lot more complex in scope (not necessarily in a bad way, either) and requires proper learning.

I came to the realisation that C and C++ are not even similar languages. Yes, you can write proper C code in C++ (with a bit of added strictness), but that's not how one should write C++. Also, I think that lot of the "anger" towards C++ is that the the names makes you think it's like C, but then you start learning the language and realise that in fact it is nothing like C on the outside, just on the inside.

Anyway, I'm not hating on C, I actually haven't taken on the quest to learn it properly, and I still rely mostly on C.

I think you're right there about the differences between C and C++ and the root of the anger towards it. C is completely alien to me - I wouldn't be able to competently write a decent program in it. But C++ is a different matter.

I have worked with people who write C++ in "fancy C" style too.

EDIT: [since I exhausted the edit period] I meant to say "I'm not hating on C++" in the last sentence. :-)

Cheers!

I concur with this. I use C++ daily and have been for about 20 years, and I still run into gotchas and things I misunderstand all the time.

I feel it's even worse than that, though. There seems to be a culture among C++ programmers to do things in overly clever ways and to push the limits of readability and understandability. Just look at the headers for the standard C++ template library, for example. (I'm currently looking at the ones shipped with gcc.) They don't even use consistent indentation, and have single letter variables that are meaningless to all but those who wrote it. It's pretty frustrating to deal with.

You get to see this at CppCon 2014 videos.

On one side, very rigid companies barely using C++11, mostly as a better C with improved type checking.

On the other side, researchers making use of every template metaprogramming trick they can remember of.

Looking at the headers is not the way to learn about the library. Anything that you learned that wasn't documented in the standard or any of the many books, articles, and videos available would be an implementation detail that you couldn't rely on in portable code or even in the next version of gcc.

These files are only intended to be seen by the compiler and it doesn't complain about indentation or single letter variables.

That was my impression when I took a course in C++ as a grad student. The course emphasized C++11, so I assume it represented (at the time, early 2013) modern usage. But 80% of every lecture consisted of presenting some example code, and explaining how what you think this code should do (if indeed it's obvious at all) is probably wrong. So many gotchas. It made me terrified to think of trying to write/test/debug a large and sophisticated C++ code base.

"G++ now allows typename in a template template parameter." (GCC changelog)

    template<template<typename> typename X> struct D; // OK

Thanks guys..