News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Popular Myths about C++, Part 2 by spoiler on Monday December 15, 2014 @01:53PM (#8753585)
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.

Re:Popular Myths about C++, Part 2 by 72deluxe on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @04:51AM (#8756474)
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.

Re:Popular Myths about C++, Part 2 by spoiler on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @05:27AM (#8756547)
EDIT: [since I exhausted the edit period] I meant to say "I'm not hating on C++" in the last sentence. :-)

Cheers!