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 333471
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
luzr
Member since:
2005-11-20


Until C++ sorts out automated memory management using threads will be more difficult than Java for very complex programs (where long-lived multi-threaded programs share state).


If you still have to care about memory management in C++, you are doing something wrong...

If your C++ code has more than one delete per ten thousand lines and more than one new per two thousand lines, you still have something to learn ;)

Anyway, C++ has one major disadvantage. As it is around for a long time and as it has more than single vendor (unlike Java and C#), there have emerged many ways how to do C++ code.

That is why I keep saying that people should rather compare Java/C# to Qt/wxWidgets/U++ etc... than to C++.

I also believe that C++ standard library (and particulary STL) is way suboptimal. It makes you wish C++ had garbage collector...

Used properly, C++ can beat just about everything in runtime performance and in productivity IN THE SAME TIME. It is like free lunch. Of course, you need to invest in the steep learning curve to get there..

(A bit of self-promotion, I believe that these examples nicely demonstrate this:

http://www.ultimatepp.org/www$uppweb$comparison$en-us.html
)

Reply Parent Score: 3