C++ is bloated

Every C++ programmer uses a very slim subset of the C++ standard, C++ standard is wide enough for no two subsets to be the same.

Rust is nothing like C++, yet. Nightly is inching closer but it'll be years before the important features are stabilized.

I was expecting that reply. Sorry, Rust has some cool stuff when it comes to memory safety but it's no C++2

more like c++2000

>Every C++ programmer uses a very slim subset of the C++ standard
wrong

>en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/string/basic_string/append
>en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/string/basic_string/push_back
why?

>"When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb." Steve Haflich
C++ haters always make me laugh

If I want a portable C compiler, I can put tcc on a flash drive; it's like 2mb

If I want a portable C++ compiler, I need to put MinGW on a flash drive; it's more like 300mb

It's a pretty arbitrary example, but use case is important

Template meta-programming is an ugly preprocessor hack
For C++ to have the "features" that supposedly make it better than C you have to abuse the preprocessor
But now you don't know exactly which code is being compiled, the symbol names are mangled, the compile times get out of hand, and you're not actually writing in C++ but in the preprocessor language which is hell to debug because the code isn't even there and is generated at compile time
In other words C++ is so bloated that it's actually two horribly complicated languages with multiple brainlet overcomplicated ways to do the same thing instead of the one, clear, concise and enlightened way of glorious C
Also STL was a mistake, both implementation wise and as a general idea and the initials make it sound like a disease

C++ was a mistake, we should have stuck to C with maybe a few additions
>which additions?
If you had a function foo_do(struct foo *f, int a) you would be able to do foo.do(5);
Add the this operator in C for function pointers stored in structs to access the struct members
Add a maybe dereference, struct pointer member to combat once and for all null pointer bugs and make code even more concise

these people don't actually do anything productive, so they like to reimplement their own inefficient dynamic buffers and strings on every single program instead.

It's always pleasant when you accidentally type >> instead of

C is simpler and way easier to read.

>C is simpler and way easier to read.
You've clearly never had to maintain an old codebase.

>If you had a function foo_do(struct foo *f, int a) you would be able to do foo.do(5);
>Add the this operator in C for function pointers stored in structs to access the struct members
ouch, no

C is a very bare bones language, with only enough to get by. C++ has more features built upon it for a complete desktop experience. For example, if you're doing embedded stuff, C would be a better choice. For making desktop applications, C++ makes more sense. Despite C++ known for being fast, C is still faster.

it's so that you can use a name that fits a vector or a name that fits a string

>desktop experience
>c faster than cpp
>c exactly cpp

>C would be a better choice. For making desktop applications, C++ makes more sense.

You clearly don't even know what C or C++ is. If modern C++ (11/14) looks very different than C++ and than C. C++ its C with a lot of syntactic sugar and its gonna have the same performance if you know what you are doing.

And no, C is not the best choice for embedded it was the only option in the past, actually making a C++ firmware has more sense these days than doing it in C. Why?, security , modularity, scalability and maintenance. Write a simple RTOS in C and one in C++ and you will see what I am talking about.

> two horribly complicated languages
Try four.
Meyers said it pretty well, c++ is a federation of related languages.
But i wouldn't say that it's the worst thing in the world though.

Attached: effectivecpp.png (1393x963, 311K)