Comment by IAmLiterallyAB
6 months ago
If you're reaching for that hack, just use C++? You don't have to go all in on C++-isms, you can always write C-style C++ and only use the features you need.
6 months ago
If you're reaching for that hack, just use C++? You don't have to go all in on C++-isms, you can always write C-style C++ and only use the features you need.
Yeah as someone who writes C in C++, everytime I see posts bending over backwards trying to fit parameterized types into C I just cringe a little. I understand the appeal of sticking to pure C, but... why do that to yourself? Come on over, we've got lambdas, and operator overloading for those special circumstances... the water's fine!
So maybe you can answer the following question I have: what is a "protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor," and when was the last time you needed one?" At least with C, I understand the feature set and how they interact.
Just because a feature is there doesn't mean you have to use it.
Additionally the example isn't even possible, at least make ridiculous examples that compile.
Don't use inheritance and you won't have to find out.
This is just silly. C++ gives you a smorgasbord of multi-paradigm features. Everything has its place and you can mix and match your needed featureset based on project needs, team skillset etc. You don't have to know or learn everything.
Some people will do as much as they can to hurt themselves, only to avoid using C++.
Note as the newer versions are basically C++ without Classes kind of thing.
I think the main appeal is subset lock-down and compile times. ~5000 lines in C gets me sub second iteration times, while ~5000 lines in C++ hits the 10 second mark. Including both iostream and format in C++ gets any project up into the ~1.5 second mark which kills my iteration interests.
Second to that I'd say the appeal is just watching something you've known for a long time grow slowly and steadily.
6 replies →
I see it the other way round. People hurt themselves by using C++. C++ fans will never understand it, but it you can solve your problem in a much simpler way, this is far better.
12 replies →
Not always a viable option -- especially for embedded and systems programming.
In embedded you are typically stuck on some ancient proprietary compiler and can't take advantage of the latest C versions. Even less so if you need safety standards like MISRA.
That of course doesn't help you with the switch away from C. The question is why they keep updating the language. The only ones with valid reasons to not upgrade to some more sane language can't take advantage of the new features.
i work in an embedded space in the context of devices and safety. if it were as simple as "just use c++ for these projects" most of us would use a subset, and our newer projects try to make this a requirement (we roll our own ETL for example).
however for some niche os specific things, and existing legacy products where oversight is involved, simply rolling out a c++ porting of it on the next release is, well, not a reality, and often not worth the bureaucratic investment.
while i have no commentary on the post because i'm not really a c programmer, i think a lot of comments forget some projects have requirements, and sometimes those requirements become obsolete, but you're struck with what you got until gen2, or lazyloading standardization across teams.
you are so right..thought hisotrically i would of disagreed just by being triggered.
templates is the main thing c++ has over c. its trivial to circumvent or escape the thing u dont 'like' about c++ like new and delete (personal obstacle) and write good nice modern c++ with templates.
C generic can help but ultimately, in my opinion, the need for templating is a good one to go from C to C++.