Linked by David Adams on Sat 11th Oct 2008 16:48 UTC, submitted by IndigoJo
General Development Eric Raymond is working on an essay, putatively titled "Why C++ Is Not My Favorite Programming Language". In his announcement, he calls it "an overcomplexity generator", "bloated, obfuscated, unwieldy, rigid, and brittle", and alleges that these characteristics appear in C++ applications also. I contend that many of the complaints about C++ are petty or are aimed at specific libraries or poor documentation and that many of the features commonly regarded as unnecessary (and excluded from intended replacements) are, in fact, highly useful. C++: the Ugly Useful Programming Language
Thread beginning with comment 333304
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Before you get rid of C++ ....
by WorknMan on Sat 11th Oct 2008 17:09 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Before you get rid of C++, how about developing a language (with appropriate libraries) to do everything C++ does, including the ability to code fast, tight, native applications that can run on multiple platforms, and which will allow you to code close to the metal if you would like.

Reply Score: 13

benhonghu Member since:
2008-08-24

Before you get rid of C++, how about developing a language (with appropriate libraries) to do everything C++ does, including the ability to code fast, tight, native applications that can run on multiple platforms, and which will allow you to code close to the metal if you would like.

And most importantly, must be 99% C-compatible.

My experience is, for a small application that doesn't do anything the base class library doesn't provide, C# is indeed much faster to code. But as the code complexity grows and you need access to some C API then C# really is a hassle.

Good C++ libraries (like boost, Qt, OpenSceneGraph, etc) does a lot to smooth out the development experience.

Edited 2008-10-11 17:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

Accident Member since:
2005-07-29

Well D comes pretty close to what he's looking for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming

Reply Parent Score: 5

aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, we have objective-c...

It is C, and then smalltalk came in and started influencing it to be object oriented.

"Come on kid, everyone's doing it!"

Reply Parent Score: 2

anythinggoes Member since:
2008-07-01

you mean like lisp? (most any lisp variant, even scheme) ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

helf Member since:
2005-07-06

hurray Lisp!

Reply Parent Score: 2

mksoft Member since:
2006-02-25
ciplogic Member since:
2006-12-22

Even java code runs native today. Is not interpreted so is misleading your "native" statement. The same about .net

Reply Parent Score: 1

elanthis Member since:
2007-02-17

I think you're confused, kid. Java and .NET can run with some of their code compiled to native machine code at runtime, but that's not the same thing as a language that compiles to native code. You still need the actual managed runtime environment (which is quite different than just linking a shared library) for Java/.NET to work.

Basically, with C/C++, you can write code that runs on a machine in which no existing runtime or standard library yet exists (assuming your compiler has a target for it), where-as with Java/.NET, you need to port millions of lines of code (which themselves are written in -- wait for it -- C and C++) over to the platform first.

Reply Parent Score: 3

snorkel Member since:
2006-03-16

that language already exists, it's called Delphi...
http://www.codegear.com

Reply Parent Score: 2

werpu Member since:
2006-01-18

Before you get rid of C++, how about developing a language (with appropriate libraries) to do everything C++ does, including the ability to code fast, tight, native applications that can run on multiple platforms, and which will allow you to code close to the metal if you would like.


Objective-C... as old as C++ but way superior!

Reply Parent Score: 1

IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

Soundwave superior, constructicons inferior

Reply Parent Score: 3