Muh See Blus Blus

Java =/= Javascript
Learn the fucking difference.

java is literally pajeetscript though

I depends on what you consider to be good. It takes the low-level nature of C and bolts every paradigm under the sun onto it. Some of it is really good, some of it will make you wish you were programming in something else. The syntax is really bolted on to C and can get ugly as fuck, and there are often multiple ways of doing things. On the other hand, it really lets you do anything without getting in your way.

Personally I would love a language that does what C++ does, but throws the syntax and C compatibility out of the window. I'm a sucker for Lisp's S-expressions.

That's a meme because computer scientists want to be like "see, we have girl coders too, you know". The truth is that Ada Lovelace was among the first people to recognize the idea of abstraction, that math could be used to represent things like images and music instead of just crunching numbers.

This isn't a conversation about webdevshit.

rust

Stop trying to force that shitty language.

Rust really is a one-trick pony, isn't it?

He didn't ask for a language with even worse syntax.

stop trying to force that shitty meme.

what about thread safety? rust is at least a two-trick pony

The mind of a rust zombie.

The mind of a larper.

Their reactions are usually even more entertaining if you point out that there's more to safety than affine typing. Which is all that Rust has.

wtf im a #cmissile now

You didn't produce much of an argument in the first place, so why do you expect other people to do so?

you can stop. i am already convinced. #cmissile

Yes, we know that incessantly and dogmatically parroting "muh safety! muh safety!" while belittling any other aspect of a programming language is what counts as an argument for rust zombies. However, sane people tend to think otherwise.

not an argument

I always chuckle when autists screech at each other about muh Rust and C. Holla Forums doesn't fucking matter. Rust is getting plenty of industry adoption. Your bickering won't change that.

You sure seem to think syntax doesn't matter.

C++ is the perfect language.

rust-lang.org/en-US/friends.html

Who needs statistics when you have a bunch of logos on a page?

On topic though, C++ is by no means perfect, but I have yet to see a serious contender for its replacement. Such a contender would need to:
- be as efficient and low-level (bars every single garbage-collected language in existence)
- be as good or better for generic programming (bars Go)
- compile faster (bars Rust)
- have better syntax (bars Rust)
- not add extra burdens on the programmer when doing simple things (bars Rust), while still allowing a sophisticated programming style when doing more elaborate things (bars Go)
- be "multi-paradigm", or at least have the potential to be through user extension
And then it would need to be marketed somehow (where Go and Rust shine).

rust
actually also rust. c/c++ burdens the programmer with undefined behavior
subjective

nice meme

nice meme

nice meme

nice meme

all me

also me

all me

No it isn't. C++ was a successful attempt to piggyback on C's popularity and retrofit it with half-assed OOP semantics, incompatible with the rest of the language. This, together with the idiotic insistence on backward compatibility with C, quickly bloated the language with duplicate features (notably new[] vs malloc and iostreams vs stdio).

Basically, C++ is a low-level language pretending to be high-level. That said, the autistic C++ apologists consider anything above machine code to be high-level.

no

c++ is a high level language pretending to be low level

you walked right into that one didn't you son?

what do you mean?

Women are meant to program in the language of foods and spices, user.
and even then whenever a man tries to cook he'll end up doing it better than a woman

>implying some companies don't want to put up their logo everywhere

It should also be independent of LLVM, something that Rust seems hellbent on shoving down everyones throats. A lot of C programs can be compiled using both GCC and LLVM, but Rust works only with LLVM.

It is irrational programming in a language with a syntax you hate, so
is valid argumentation if the question if one should spend one's time coding in a given programming language.

If plugging some memory leaks is the only thing Rust can offer, we're better off researching ways to do that automatically inside the C compiler, rather than jumping at these people obsessed with CoCs.

seems like Ada is the new C++

It's what enterprise, high performance software is made of. Just stop bitching and get into it.

C++ is terrible, all the good parts of C++ are actually from C.
Is C good? It is as good as it gets, but it's bad too.

Truth is that anything that has OOP is a failed experiment that you keep using because standards and terrible university teachers. All the problems OOP solves are actually solvable in multitude of manners, many times in easier fashion if you drop OOP concepts.

OOP is good in certain domains, but the truth is that it has done so much damage that it comes to the point we should ask ourselves if it was worth it at all. Seeing people encapsulating everything inside classes, even stateless utility functions is apalling.

Why so much talk about OOP? because modern c++, even if c++ is supposed to be taken as multiparadigm is actually OOP, you get shunned and excised if you talk about other c++ that isn't OOP.

There are other things terrible about C++. Templates rise up compile times in disproportionate ways and often make it really hard to understand what the compiler will actually do with them. It's extremely easy to misuse them, and it's really hard to debug them. Which is a crime, because unlike other things, like memory management, preprocessing should be something trivial, yet they manage to make the language harder without any substantial advantage.

You also have the problem of almost all C++ libraries replicating C ones and actually performing worse in most levels.

You also have the problem of a community sick, that has learnt wrong things and is convinced everything old should be buried, that they should use the new fancy, slow, clunky toys they're provided.

The worst part of c++ is that it will get worse and worse. The dark council that manages the evolution of the standard is actually in love with itself and their stupid ideas. So you can expect even more OOP, more senseless abstraction, more ridiculous tenets. Expect more AAA, expect more templating.

Or perhaps, the worst part is that it's not even worth moving out.

Other alternatives, such as the popular (stop kidding yourselves, I'm just insulting you right now rust barely exists) are even worse.

Rust has a terrible community, even worse than c++ and has the same kind of people developing their language from the ground up. What's particularly wrong about that? You don't get the sane base that is just plain C. Rust is just a look into the future of C++ insanity.

Ada fits all your criteria except for the marketing. Which is arguably irrelevant. Funny thing is that Ada has been around for almost precisely as long as C++ has.

I wanted to disprove you by going all "Well, it can't be as performant" and went instantly to check out benchmarks only to be surprised.

Yes, it is still quite slower than c in most benchmarks, and more or less as fast in some others, but it is to a respectable degree.

Definetely going to give it a look.

The only thing about Ada that makes for inherently slower performance than C++ (by 20-50%) is certain checks that have to be done at runtime. They can be turned off if they don't make sense for your application, but for the vast majority of cases safety trumps speed. All other benchmark differences can be attributed to either the code not being algorithmically identical (eg the computer languages benchmark game) or the toolchain not having had quite as much optimisation done on it.

My main issue is that I work, and only feel particularly passionate about cases where performance is king. I perfectly understand cases where safety is actually more important, but well, in many cases where safety is important, speed actually isn't, so you can just use some highly abstract, fancy and confy language for that.

Even then, having a safe and moderately fast language for the places where I don't care about performance is good. Specially if it isn't ideologically motivated as rust is.

...

derp I dunguffed and for some reason it I filled everything with > without knowing, lel.

...

yosefk.com/c fqa/

Everything you need to know about C++

I just came from a coding Rust program and I hated every single minute of it. Are there any recommended sources to learn Ada, or at least trustworthy websites to download the reference manual from?

do you not know how to search for things? ada2012 is the current specification and they have their own web site. guess what the url is.

ada does not have that "free and open source" surrounding it, all libs are basically licensed and cost money or just bitrotting

adaic.org/learn/materials/
b-ok.org/book/2762466/ce33e7

not an argument
gcc backend is being worked on faggit
subjective
retard confirmed

opinion discarded

You got that backwards. All of the bad parts of C++ are from C. The attempts at making good parts have been corrupted by C compatibility.

C is unbelievably bad. Null-terminated strings and array decay are extremely bad decisions, and the syntax is also bad.

Plain C is fine, it's just overly verbose when it comes to error handling. When I need to write a library that will be shared by a lot of other projects I write it in C, but I write application code in C++ when possible. It's refreshing writing in C as it doesn't take banning 90% of the language to keep a team from destroying a project like with C++.

stop talking retard

I know how to search for things, but I am paranoid, and I am no fucking oracle to know beforehand which sites won't give me PDF-driven cyberHIV. I found ada-auth.org and I am not even sure if it is trustworthy. Also found an Ada wikibook, but I am skeptic about its quality.

Thanks user. Will check the adaic one.

And this is precisely what I was speaking about.

Yes, they make the replicated parts seem bad because you get a retrocompatibility part for comparizon, that simply makes you seem stupid. Every feature replicating old C makes you instantly think "Then, why don't I just use plain C?".

These are dangerous people that are really angry with things that work for as long they come from the old thing. Disregarding the fact that their language IS used because its main point was C compatibility (which you don't actually truly have). If you want to be angry with something, be angry with the autistic stunts of the standard dark council. Everything about modern C++ is cancer. Just as I would say to a rustfag for their obsessive preaching, clean your fucking community, you're unbearable, and you don't know what you're talking about half of the time.

C sintax + shitty templates is worse.

It's not much more considering the only way to turn exception insanity down is working with exceptions as if it were plain old errors which kinda kills all the "so ez!" feeling of wrapping everything in trycatchs.

The C parts are even worse.

What about C#?

a worse java

Not really.
It takes a special kind of stupid to think the standard library that is filled with badly implemented templates, which are a broken feature on its own, are worse than the basic, easy to understand, transparent, plain c features.

You could argue that C isn't that good. After all it's old, several features are hard to use. The sintax is obtuse if you compare with modern languages.

But everything about C++ is simply, objectively wrong. All the features spew hate and vitriol to its own.

"We added auto so you don't have to worry about types!"
isn't the whole point of going into a typed languate that I worry about types? why are you wasting time on this? Have you not seen the complaints that people actually want the thing to be even MORE strong typed? Why can't you give me stronger typedefs?

"We added lambdas... so you well, we don't really know why we added them, but here!"
Didn't we have already function pointers? Moreover, why the fuck you designed lambdas to be incompatible with function pointers?

"We added templates that are better than that macro feature you had, stop using macros, they're evil!"
How did you even manage to be WORSE than macros? I simply don't get the special kind of engineering you have to put forward to make something worse than macros.

And everything about C++ reeks of this. Trying to do something that goes beyond point, or something that was already done. Most of the time breaking retrocompatibility and doing something that performs even worse than before without excuse.

opinion discarded

Are you serious? Type inference is not dynamic typing, you idiot.

C++ is wewazkangz: the language.

They try to claim to be the victims of the past. All the time "our things would be good if the past was different!". But that's the point. We can see the past and see your stuff is shit by comparizon.

C++ is a failure, and we are only using it because all the fast options are riddled with even worse stuff.

yes, auto is determined at compile time. But my main issue is someone decided this was a good idea when there are so many things to fix, and when the result would be obviously malicious modern c++ fanatics claiming AAA.

Auto is simply an unneeded sintax sugar that openly displays the intentions of the dark council. What they like and what they don't. Stupid modern c++ people feel extremely empowered by being supported by the standard, even when the standard it's supposed to follow how the language is actually used. The quantity of people treating C++ like C plus some stuff grows each day.

I think I have not shown in my post that I don't know or have not used those features. But I feel the need to pinpoint this is exactly the problem the modern c++ community has. Nobody would be angry with the community if we could at least work together to fix problems. Nobody would be angry if you remembered that c++ is supposed to be multi-paradigm.

My experience tells me that C++ is simply harder to use on big projects, where people come from diverse backgrounds and different skill levels. I'm not saying impossible, but you would be better using something like java or c# if it weren't for the performance requirement. It doesn't matter if I know how templates are supposed to be used. I would require to micromanage everything to make sure my minions actually use templates in a sane way and I don't have time for that.

It doesn't help having a community online that makes sure every single page praises the templates, tell us there are no side effects, and plainly lie, time and time again because they want their features to be more adopted.

Compilation time is not free.

who gives a shit? as long as runtime time is low i dont care

Literally everyone who does actual software development and not just jerking off their fizzbuzz functions.

Well I do care. And I care specifically because I'm continously told by modern c++ acolytes that their way is the only way.

If you don't see Auto at every line you scream.
If you don't see templates at every chance you scream.

When you're told to not do things that are not needed you scream. You end up writing code slower than the code you were meant to replace.

Real life scenario: We detect our bottleneck is in some math operation performed with glm. We ask the new kid to write something faster. He only needs to do a math operation strictly with floats.

He ends up doing a math class that templates everywhere, (just as GLM DOES BY THE WAY), and end up doing something slower.

This is you.

The need to accomodate for all possibilities is secondary, your features are secondary. We don't care if you'll have to write more stuff later. We don't care if you'll have to rewrite everything. We wanted you to do something and you didn't. We even gave you the exact math operations you needed to do to perform faster. But you didn't because that wouldn't have accomodated to your abstractions and needs.

And what's worse, testing and making sure your thing doesn't have any merit actually takes 5 minutes longer because of compilation times.

This. Every single moment of compilation time should be directed at making things fast, not at parsing poorly implemented sintax sugar.

I send my programs to a compile server if I ever want to do a full compile. Compiling on my dev machine takes a negligible amount of time.

I want to solve the problems I want to solve. Your things don't solve my problems (and I'm quite skeptic on the idea that actually solve your problems either). They're just aesthetics that don't attack my problem.

Just listen to yourself. "I send my programs to a compile server" YES. YOU DO. AND I DOUBT YOUR PROBLEM WAS THAT HEAVY ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY REQUIRE A COMPILE SERVER BECAUSE YOU'RE MASTURBATING ON ABSTRACTIONS AND FANCY IDIOMS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PROBLEM.

You're putting extra costs on your company because you believe you have the definitive productivity tools. And you don't. You only have tools to require longer compile times. You have a tool to write code that seems reusable and isn't. You have OOP patterns that tell you have a hammer, and that everything is a nail.

im pretty sure a compile server would cost a company less money than your autism

c is oop

Yes, but you're an ignorant. I already took in account that

You actually believe those tools make you go faster, You actually believe those tools make bugs rare and go away.

And you only do because you're an ignorant. You probably have not managed big projects with and without your bullshit. Your thing produces problems and requires higher knowledge about your sintactic sugar, and even when you have knowledgeable people you'll lose loads of time on opinionated approaches that don't attack the problem at hand.

fuck off gopher. your shitty lol no generics language isnt better because it is simple.

a simple thing that requires lots of work is better than a complex thing that requires even MORE work and ends up being slower in ALL the fields.

c++ doesn't give you any advantage.

Also boost sucks and is slow, you should stop using boost as an example of how great your language is, it's embarrasing.

Modern C++ fanatic life:

MC++: "Hey have you seen this feature, it's really great, we should replace the old things with this feature!"
SanePerson: "Okay, run a benchmark."
MC++: "Y-Yeah, I'll totally do that ;)"

some time later

MC++: "I rewrote the things with this new feature!"
SanePerson: "Okay, is it faster?"
MC++: "Well, uh.. I already commited it and uh..."
SanePerson: "Did you even made a benchmark?"
MC++: "Uh.. no.. I-"
SanePerson: "Revert."

some time later

SanePerson: "I've seen that you've been using that new feature on new code. I thought I asked you to perform a benchmark before doing new things"
MC++: "Well, but it IS faster, obviously"
SanePerson: "I want to see it with my own eyes first"
MC++: "Even if it were slower, it's faster to write, the difference would be negligible at best, it's only some nanoseconds"
SanePerson: "I don't think you would say it's negligible if it were the other way around, can you do a fucking benchmark?"

some time later

MC++: I can't push to master anymore!
SanePerson: Yes. You can't.

c++ sucks. i never presented boost as an example of how great c++ is.
0/10 argumentation

nice fanfic but where is the argument?

The rest of the thread. Truth has been already spoken. Most people working a long time with c++ end up realizing all their patterns and tactics to write sane c++ code are just attemps at fighting c++ innate obtuseness. At this point the only cure is time, since you obviously came out of your compsci course last year and youre still brainwashed.

All that's left to do is mock, because I don't know you in real life to be there at the moment where I can say "I told you so."

where is your argument?

No, the point is to give the compiler information about your data so it can produce correct and efficient assembly and detect errors sooner than later. If the compiler can infer a type by itself, then that's good.

What the fuck are you talking about? Lambdas without capture are convertible to function pointers. Why lambdas with capture aren't convertible to function pointers should be obvious to you.

Do you actually believe that textual language-unaware copy-paste semantics is better than parametrized language-aware function/struct generation?

Why not mention actual flaws (e.g. dependent name lookup rules forcing you to insert "typename" and "template" in dumb places, rules for variable initialization are somewhat baroque, object slicing, array decay, still stuck with the old #include system (bad for compilation times), etc.) instead? I have a feeling that a lot of the hatred for modern C++ is not rationally motivated.

uninstall your compiler, faggot

Your definition of clean means "wathever the my dark evil masters think it's new and shiny".

My definition of clean is things working and ACTUALLY being escalable rather than arguing to be escalable and not being so too much.

Your line of thinking leads to picrelated. You can perfectly write fast code, but decide to showcase your language with crude, slow, sloppy code. Because it's 2016, you're not supposed to manage memory!

You're lazy, all your "modern" features are lazy. And they still not make you a more productive person, they only make you look like a jerk.

Rust is slow, unstable, insecure garbage.

Check the other one too. It's a pdf copy of Programming in Ada 2012.

Fuck off, grandpa LARPer. No one thinks you're a "leet sepple master" because you use outdated shit. Hurry up and retire so no one has to deal with your garbage shitcode clouding up the codebase

not an argument

C++ is good enough. It's just that you need to know where and how to use certain things. It's like asking for a needle and getting the whole haystack. Things like vectors and native threads can be a godsend, though. I suppose an alternate view is to take vanilla c and write your own abstractions, building up from the bottom instead of cutting down from the top. Either way, the sweet spot lies somewhere between C and C++