Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #122678 > unrolled thread

"Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-01 23:39 -0500
    Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-02 20:34 -0500
    Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Pierre <null@void.net> - 2025-09-03 22:20 +0000
      Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-09-04 02:10 +0200
        Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-04 00:12 +0000
          Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-04 02:30 +0000
            Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jaworski1978@adres.pl> - 2025-09-04 18:33 +0200
              Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-09-05 00:36 +0300
          Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> - 2025-09-07 17:50 +0000
            Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-09-08 09:13 +0300
              Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 00:20 -0700
              Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-08 08:43 +0000
                Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-09-09 21:50 +0000
                  Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-09 22:38 +0000
                    Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-09-10 18:20 +0000
        Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." boltar@caprica.universe - 2025-09-04 08:36 +0000
          Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-04 12:40 +0200
            Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." boltar@caprica.universe - 2025-09-04 15:57 +0000
              Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-05 05:42 +0200
                Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-05 14:08 +0000
                  Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-09-05 16:51 +0200
                    Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." boltar@caprica.universe - 2025-09-05 15:17 +0000
                    Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 00:41 +0800
                    Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 00:41 +0800
                    Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-09-07 11:16 +0300
                      Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-09-07 12:08 +0200
                        Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 22:16 +0800
                        Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." boltar@caprica.universe - 2025-09-07 14:42 +0000
                          Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-09-07 20:05 +0200
                      Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-07 15:30 +0000
                        Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." boltar@caprica.universe - 2025-09-07 16:00 +0000
                          Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-09-09 21:50 +0000
                  Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-05 13:58 -0500
                  Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-06 01:14 +0200
                Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-09-05 17:34 -0400
                  Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-09-05 21:55 +0000
                    Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-06 01:39 +0200
                    Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-06 17:46 +0000
                      Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-09-06 18:38 +0000
                        Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-08 08:41 +0000
                  Re: “Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching.” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-08 08:40 +0000
                    Re: “Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching.” Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2025-09-10 01:21 -0600
          Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-09-04 23:40 +0200
        Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Mario Rosell <usenet@mariorosell.es> - 2026-04-17 20:25 +0000
          Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-19 00:10 +0000
          Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 03:51 +0800
      Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-08 08:36 +0000
        Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 17:01 -0500
          Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-08 22:43 +0000
            Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 17:57 -0500
          Re: "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching." scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-09 14:45 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#122678 — "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."

"Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."

"The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one 
question."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg

"At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further 
comment."

Lynn

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#122680

On 9/1/2025 11:39 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
> 
> "The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one 
> question."
>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg
> 
> "At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further 
> comment."
> 
> Lynn

I learned C from the original K&R C book, about 1985 or so.  Here is the 
second edition, the ANSI version.
  
https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-2nd-Brian-Kernighan/dp/0131103628

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122682

In comp.lang.c Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
> 
> "The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one 
> question."
>    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg
> 
> "At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further 
> comment."
> 
> Lynn
> 

I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software 
today:

"A lot of it sucks!  Unfortunately, it's all too true."


Pierre

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122683

Am 04.09.2025 um 00:20 schrieb Pierre:
> In comp.lang.c Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
>>
>> "The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one
>> question."
>>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg
>>
>> "At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further
>> comment."
>>
>> Lynn
>>
> 
> I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
> today:
> 
> "A lot of it sucks!  Unfortunately, it's all too true."

Yes, and a large part of it because it is written in C.
Five times the code as in C++ or Rust and the same degree of more bugs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122684

Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:
>Am 04.09.2025 um 00:20 schrieb Pierre:
>> In comp.lang.c Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
>>>
>>> "The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one
>>> question."
>>>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg
>>>
>>> "At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further
>>> comment."
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>
>> 
>> I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
>> today:
>> 
>> "A lot of it sucks!  Unfortunately, it's all too true."
>
>Yes, and a large part of it because it is written in C.

Nonsense.

It sucks due to design, not implementation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122685

On 2025-09-04, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:
>>Am 04.09.2025 um 00:20 schrieb Pierre:
>>> In comp.lang.c Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
>>>>
>>>> "The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one
>>>> question."
>>>>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg
>>>>
>>>> "At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further
>>>> comment."
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>> 
>>> I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
>>> today:
>>> 
>>> "A lot of it sucks!  Unfortunately, it's all too true."
>>
>>Yes, and a large part of it because it is written in C.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> It sucks due to design, not implementation.

The concepts of "design" and "implementation" are tidy abstractions in the
study of software engineering.

IN the practice of software engineering they are not separable.

For instance, a development situation may take it for granted that a
certain tech stack will be used. That the informs some of the content of
the design.

Perhaps not the highest levels (e.g. use cases like "user deposits money
via ATM") but once you get into detail, designs are become thoroughly
soaked in implementation concepts.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122689

W dniu 4.09.2025 o 04:30, Kaz Kylheku pisze:
>>>> I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
>>>> today:
>>>>
>>>> "A lot of it sucks!  Unfortunately, it's all too true."
>>> Yes, and a large part of it because it is written in C.
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> It sucks due to design, not implementation.
> The concepts of "design" and "implementation" are tidy abstractions in the
> study of software engineering.
> 
> IN the practice of software engineering they are not separable.

BS! Behind every genius prog. or tool is some brilliant idea. That is 
the first step of design. All engineering art require detailed and aware 
design. If some body program in other way, then result can be one: piece 
of c* .

-- 
Have a nice day!
Jacek Marcin Jaworski,          Pruszcz Gd., woj. Pomorskie, PL🇵🇱, EU🇪🇺;
tel.: +48-609-170-742, najlepiej w godz.:     5:00-5:25 lub 16:00-16:55;
<jaworski1978@adres.pl>,  gpg: EBFD1A464130993FBBC230FE221740E87CE10580;
Domowa s. WWW (WYSZUKIWARKI JĄ POMIJAJĄ!!!):     <https://energokod.pl>;
Mini Netykieta:               <https://energokod.pl/MiniNetykieta.html>;
Mailowa Samoobrona:               <https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/pl>.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122690

On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 18:33:11 +0200
🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jaworski1978@adres.pl> wrote:

> W dniu 4.09.2025 o 04:30, Kaz Kylheku pisze:
> >>>> I liked his reply to the question about the current state of
> >>>> software today:
> >>>>
> >>>> "A lot of it sucks!  Unfortunately, it's all too true."  
> >>> Yes, and a large part of it because it is written in C.  
> >> Nonsense.
> >>
> >> It sucks due to design, not implementation.  
> > The concepts of "design" and "implementation" are tidy abstractions
> > in the study of software engineering.
> > 
> > IN the practice of software engineering they are not separable.  
> 
> BS! Behind every genius prog. or tool is some brilliant idea. That is 
> the first step of design. All engineering art require detailed and
> aware design. If some body program in other way, then result can be
> one: piece of c* .
> 

Kaz is right.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122714

In article <qP4uQ.1056787$3yJ3.222885@fx16.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>It sucks due to design, not implementation.

I think it sucks due to both. :)

Last time I flew there were so many software bugs from cosmetic to
functional. Nothing in the flight control systems was apparent,
thankfully. But the boarding pass printout had raw HTML tags (did anyone
even do the most basic test of looking?), the automated baggage check
failed to recognize us and other travelers while the human had no
trouble, and the in-flight entertainment system needed a reboot to get
it working.

Just last night I was fighting with our local movie theater's website,
which required me to reload the page every time I hit "back", at which
point I'd have to re-navigate to the theater page.

But what was I going to do? Not fly out of that airport? Not go to the
one major theater in my town? They know they only have to care so much
about quality.

The older I get, the more my poor wife has to listen to my laments. And
she has limited eyeroll capabilities.

-- 
Brian "Beej Jorgensen" Hall | beej@beej.us

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122718

On 9/7/2025 8:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
> 
> Just last night I was fighting with our local movie theater's website,
> which required me to reload the page every time I hit "back", at which
> point I'd have to re-navigate to the theater page.

It is hard to get the browser "back" button to work when there is a 
state at the server side. In a bank, when you have transferred some 
money to somebody, what should the "back" button do? Take the money back 
from another bank? Send the money again?

Actually, the back button in the browser should be disabled when 
clicking it would not make sense, but it looks like there is currently 
no protocol for doing that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122719

On 9/7/2025 11:13 PM, Paavo Helde wrote:
> On 9/7/2025 8:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
>>
>> Just last night I was fighting with our local movie theater's website,
>> which required me to reload the page every time I hit "back", at which
>> point I'd have to re-navigate to the theater page.
> 
> It is hard to get the browser "back" button to work when there is a 
> state at the server side. In a bank, when you have transferred some 
> money to somebody, what should the "back" button do? Take the money back 
> from another bank? Send the money again?
> 
> Actually, the back button in the browser should be disabled when 
> clicking it would not make sense, but it looks like there is currently 
> no protocol for doing that.

Hopefully some sort of state that can help prevent this?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122724

On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 09:13:11 +0300, Paavo Helde wrote:

> Actually, the back button in the browser should be disabled when 
> clicking it would not make sense, but it looks like there is currently 
> no protocol for doing that.

The way to disable it would be to never reload the entire page, just keep 
dynamically updating parts of its contents.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122730

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 08:43 this Monday (GMT):
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 09:13:11 +0300, Paavo Helde wrote:
>
>> Actually, the back button in the browser should be disabled when 
>> clicking it would not make sense, but it looks like there is currently 
>> no protocol for doing that.
>
> The way to disable it would be to never reload the entire page, just keep 
> dynamically updating parts of its contents.


Then people would complain about being sent back to the search engine or new tab page.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122733

On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 21:50:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 08:43 this Monday (GMT):
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 09:13:11 +0300, Paavo Helde wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, the back button in the browser should be disabled when
>>> clicking it would not make sense, but it looks like there is currently
>>> no protocol for doing that.
>>
>> The way to disable it would be to never reload the entire page, just
>> keep dynamically updating parts of its contents.
> 
> Then people would complain about being sent back to the search engine or
> new tab page.

There is a way to set a “modified & unsaved” flag on the page so that, 
when the user tries to leave it, they get an “Are you sure?” warning.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122736

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 22:38 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 21:50:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 08:43 this Monday (GMT):
>>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 09:13:11 +0300, Paavo Helde wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, the back button in the browser should be disabled when
>>>> clicking it would not make sense, but it looks like there is currently
>>>> no protocol for doing that.
>>>
>>> The way to disable it would be to never reload the entire page, just
>>> keep dynamically updating parts of its contents.
>> 
>> Then people would complain about being sent back to the search engine or
>> new tab page.
>
> There is a way to set a “modified & unsaved” flag on the page so that, 
> when the user tries to leave it, they get an “Are you sure?” warning.


Good to know, that definitely helps the issue.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122686

On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 02:10:40 +0200
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> gabbled:
>Am 04.09.2025 um 00:20 schrieb Pierre:
>> In comp.lang.c Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
>>>
>>> "The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one
>>> question."
>>>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg
>>>
>>> "At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further
>>> comment."
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>
>> 
>> I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
>> today:
>> 
>> "A lot of it sucks!  Unfortunately, it's all too true."
>
>Yes, and a large part of it because it is written in C.
>Five times the code as in C++ or Rust and the same degree of more bugs.

The C++ code will be in the libraries but the amount of code will be more
or less the same.

I'd love to hear his opinion of the designed-by-committee syntatic horror that 
is modern C++.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122687

On 04.09.2025 10:36, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 02:10:40 +0200
> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> gabbled:
>> Am 04.09.2025 um 00:20 schrieb Pierre:
>>> In comp.lang.c Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
>>>>
>>>> "The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one
>>>> question."

His comment on Rust wasn't backed up by much experience, but his
statement on his personal practical experience was, also not too
surprising, very interesting to hear.

>>> I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
>>> today:
>>>
>>> "A lot of it sucks!  Unfortunately, it's all too true."

(Everyday experience. *sigh*. Yes.)

>> Yes, and a large part of it because it is written in C.
>> Five times the code as in C++ or Rust and the same degree of more bugs.
> 
> The C++ code will be in the libraries but the amount of code will be more
> or less the same.

I'm not sure whether you are referring to the final binary or the
plain "C" vs. C++ code.

Since in C++ the higher level code is supported by language and
powerful libraries it's IME typically terser to write, and easier
to use and combine. (YMMV)

With a full blown _complete_ interface implementation (I mean all
elements for an orthogonal use of an implementation) I typically
have a lot of code in C++, though. (Code that I typically wouldn't
have implemented in "C". So it's not directly comparable.)

> 
> I'd love to hear his opinion of the designed-by-committee syntatic
> horror that is modern C++.

You are probably speaking about the newer C++ standards, and also
not about the "C" contribution to the "syntactic horror". Right?

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122688

On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 12:40:37 +0200
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> gabbled:
>On 04.09.2025 10:36, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
>> I'd love to hear his opinion of the designed-by-committee syntatic
>> horror that is modern C++.
>
>You are probably speaking about the newer C++ standards, and also
>not about the "C" contribution to the "syntactic horror". Right?

C's syntax might not be the best, but its relatively simple. C++ syntax is
a dogs dinner and gets worse everytime the steering committee farts out a 
new version every 3 years with increasingly niche and obscure functionality.
Some C++ code now is virtually unparsable by the human eye and a lot of the
new crap are meta keywords that are compiler directives or hints rather than 
code that actually does something. eg:

swappable
swappable_with 	
destructible 	
constructible_from 	
default_initializable

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122692

On 04.09.2025 17:57, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 12:40:37 +0200
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> gabbled:
>> On 04.09.2025 10:36, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
>>> I'd love to hear his opinion of the designed-by-committee syntatic
>>> horror that is modern C++.
>>
>> You are probably speaking about the newer C++ standards, and also
>> not about the "C" contribution to the "syntactic horror". Right?
> 
> C's syntax might not be the best, but its relatively simple. C++ syntax is
> a dogs dinner and gets worse everytime the steering committee farts out a 
> new version every 3 years with increasingly niche and obscure functionality.
> Some C++ code now is virtually unparsable by the human eye and a lot of the
> new crap are meta keywords that are compiler directives or hints rather than 
> code that actually does something. eg:
> 
> swappable
> swappable_with 	
> destructible 	
> constructible_from 	
> default_initializable
> 

Thanks for clarifying. - I stopped my professional use of C++ with
this millennium. The last standard that came to my attention was
something like "C++0x/C++11" (IIRC, with move semantics, and some
such). While I understand the motivation for introduction of such
things I already found the syntax, the implications on readability,
and the complexity a problem back then. I can think that this state
of language may repel at least the younger programmer's generation
and foster them turning to other (syntactical cleaner and simpler)
languages. Programmers that grew up with "C" and C++ might be more
stressable since they need only accommodate to the language deltas.

WRT C's contribution I agree that it's comparable simple, but still
contributes not insignificantly to the "syntax horror". It might be
more an issue for folks who are also used to non-"C"-like languages.

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122693

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>On 04.09.2025 17:57, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 12:40:37 +0200
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> gabbled:
>>> On 04.09.2025 10:36, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
>>>> I'd love to hear his opinion of the designed-by-committee syntatic
>>>> horror that is modern C++.
>>>
>>> You are probably speaking about the newer C++ standards, and also
>>> not about the "C" contribution to the "syntactic horror". Right?
>> 
>> C's syntax might not be the best, but its relatively simple. C++ syntax is
>> a dogs dinner and gets worse everytime the steering committee farts out a 
>> new version every 3 years with increasingly niche and obscure functionality.
>> Some C++ code now is virtually unparsable by the human eye and a lot of the
>> new crap are meta keywords that are compiler directives or hints rather than 
>> code that actually does something. eg:
>> 
>> swappable
>> swappable_with 	
>> destructible 	
>> constructible_from 	
>> default_initializable
>> 
>
>Thanks for clarifying. - I stopped my professional use of C++ with
>this millennium. The last standard that came to my attention was
>something like "C++0x/C++11" (IIRC, with move semantics, and some
>such). While I understand the motivation for introduction of such
>things I already found the syntax, the implications on readability,
>and the complexity a problem back then

Nobody is required to actually use all that cruft.  It is still
possible to write C with classes using even the most modern C++
suite.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web