Re:Popular Myths about C++, Part 2
by lelandbatey on Monday December 15, 2014 @03:12PM
(#8754124)
Yeah, I totally agree on that point. With C++, it's not entirely uncommon to write lines like the following:
std::vector<std::string> exampleparser::tokenize(std::string some_input){
You forgot to explicitly specify the allocator in the vector...... - it'll default to std::allocator and put items on the heap but you could potentially use your own and get it to put stuff on disk instead!
I don't find your example that convoluted to read to be honest.
Languages that contain lists and maps as first class types and the syntax to go with it are so much nicer.
It's no joke that large C++ applications contain a poorly defined subset of common lisp.
The standard library is small. Things that are included out of the box in other languages do not. Doing some simple things are not as simple as in some other languages.
When dealing with math, on the other hand, as systems languages go, C++ is not the worst alternative. Getting numeric stuff correct is about as difficult in all languages.
I would not use C++ anything that benefits from prototyping. Otoh, when the spec has been defined and it is fairly obvious what needs done there is no reason why it should not be banged together using C++.