Having worked with a bunch of object-oriented programming languages, it's amazing how out-of-practice I am with C++ now. There's so many ways that it works differently from the languages that I'm used to that I wasn't fully prepared for.

I still eventually got a program to compile, though.

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 0

@swashberry I never coded in C++ because of such feedbacks.
don't know if it is a way to push people away from C++.

Is it really a life chasm compared to C?

Do you need all the features?

Well I should stress that C++ is a perfectly fine language, and it still benefits from an efficiency that most modern languages don't.

The thing about C++ is that, since its introduction, programming language design and particularly object-oriented design has moved on, and some de facto standards have been put into place that aren't present in C++. C++11 did introduce a lot of the quality-of-life improvements of more modern languages, though.

One of the things that makes C++ confusing is that it's basically C, but with a thin layer of something else on top of it, so it's easy to catch yourself doing things the C way when the C++ way would work better. It just takes a little getting used to.

Having said that, I actually quite like C++ because it does a lot less hand-holding than a lot of modern languages. I can get away with certain things that many languages nowadays absolutely forbid, like declaring variables in the global scope if I need them. I tend to favor more old-school languages for this reason.

@swashberry interesting. Would you mean that sticking with C++11 would be an adequate "baseline" (retro-compat etc...)?

There's so much C++ projects that I would like to contribute too but I am afraid of the level of lang subset they use.

I want to be good enough with it, not mastering it (impossible) and too dependent of new specs.

put it that way, is it difficult to follow whan the lang evolves?

I'm not finding it too difficult to follow. Most people these days seem to treat C++11 as the standard, which is a little annoying if you're using G++ since G++ favors C++98, but C++11 is definitely the easier standard to use.

I don't actually know about retro compatibility. I'm intentionally avoiding using C++11 because I want to see if I can get my current project to run on DOSBox, but I'm a crazy person.

If you're not sure what language standard a project is using an easy way to tell is to look at how they do string manipulation. C++11 introduced the `to_string` function, which is used to convert a numerical value to a string so it can easily be appended to another string. C++98 instead uses a class called a `stringstream` to append values to a stream which can then spit out the resulting string.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

A instance dedicated - but not limited - to people with an interest in the GNU+Linux ecosystem and/or general tech. Sysadmins to enthusiasts, creators to movielovers - Welcome!