←back to thread

In Defense of C++

(dayvster.com)
185 points todsacerdoti | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.601s | source
Show context
loeg ◴[] No.45268662[source]
> in C++, you can write perfectly fine code without ever needing to worry about the more complex features of the language. You can write simple, readable, and maintainable code in C++ without ever needing to use templates, operator overloading, or any of the other more advanced features of the language.

This... doesn't really hold water. You have to learn about what the insane move semantics are (and the syntax for move ctors/operators) to do fairly basic things with the language. Overloaded operators like operator*() and operator<<() are widely used in the standard library so you're forced to understand what craziness they're doing under the hood. Basic standard library datatypes like std::vector use templates, so you're debugging template instantiation issues whether you write your own templated code or not.

replies(7): >>45268759 #>>45268766 #>>45269024 #>>45272274 #>>45272736 #>>45274243 #>>45274785 #
butterisgood ◴[] No.45268759[source]
Overloaded operators were a terrible mistake in every programming language I've encountered them in. (Yes, sorry Haskell, you too!)

I don't think move semantics are really that bad personally, and some languages move by default (isn't that Rust's whole thing?).

What I don't like is the implicit ambiguous nature of "What does this line of code mean out of context" in C++. Good luck!

I have hope for C++front/Cpp2. https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront

(oh and I think you can write a whole book on the different ways to initialize variables in C++).

The result is you might be able to use C++ to write something new, and stick to a style that's readable... to you! But it might not make everyone else who "knows C++" instantly able to work on your code.

replies(5): >>45268857 #>>45268992 #>>45269102 #>>45271097 #>>45275305 #
1. m-schuetz ◴[] No.45271097[source]
Operator overloarding is essential for computer graphics libraries for vector and matrix multiplication, which becomes an illegible mess without.
replies(1): >>45271192 #
2. lifthrasiir ◴[] No.45271192[source]
I personally think that operator overloading itself is justified, but the pervasive scope of operator overloading is bad. To me the best solution is from OCaml: all operators are regular functions (`a + b` is `(+) a b`) and default bindings can't be changed but you can import them locally, like `let (+) = my_add in ...`. OCaml also comes with a great convenience syntax where `MyOps.(a + b * c)` is `MyOps.(+) a (MyOps.(*) b c)` (assuming that MyOps defines both `(+)` and `(*)`), which scopes operator overloading in a clear and still convenient way.