Go feels much like C and Python had a baby. However, its OOP implementation is significantly different from the typical (class+object instance) model. Both Go and Rust have a similar, but new take on how OOP should be done.
Interfaces, right? Yeah, I've never done serious programming with these languages, but this idea looks clean to me. I hope it scales well.
Go is being developed by two of the old bigwigs from Bell Labs (Unix and Plan 9 co-creator Ken Thompson and Plan 9 co-creator Rob Pike), and was created because they hated C++.
Haha, yeah, I later on discovered that. Go hasn't much to do with C++ (actually, almost nothing at all). KISS, simplicity is one of the strongest features and direction that the designers and current maintainers of the language are leading it to. I've studied it for a while now, and I really enjoyed it. Recommended! It is a relatively different way/approach to solve problems (=simplicity and standard libraries). I felt the same when I first learned a functional language.
About the Linus on C++ thing: classic thing is classic.
]]>nomorewindows wrote:I don't know where are you taking that from mate, read through this email.
Looks like to me it's the same link.
]]>I don't know where are you taking that from mate, read through this email.
]]>So take any package that uses those, and replicate all the functionality in C without boost/qt/etc, and it will take at least as long - if not longer - to compile.
Although I will agree that using those libs can open the door for bad coding practicies, 'feature creep' and bloat. But that is not a direct result of those libs - it is a result of lazy programmers.
]]>Since then, I have had the opportunity to do more embedded and non-GUI stuff. I became disenchanted with C++ and drifted back to pure C. On my return, however, I found I learned a lot about data structures and data centric programs -- I find my C coding to have vastly improved as a result of my excursion into C++.
]]>I've recently stumbled upon Go. It seems like a good compromise between efficiency and modern conventions, and it is strongly based in C/C++. I'll probably study it during the next weeks. Has anyone tried it?
Go feels much like C and Python had a baby. However, its OOP implementation is significantly different from the typical (class+object instance) model. Both Go and Rust have a similar, but new take on how OOP should be done.
Personally, I like the new take on OOP, but I'm not a huge fan of everything that both Go and Rust have done. We'll see how Rust turns out, and I'll make my judgement then.
All the best,
-HG
]]>I've recently stumbled upon Go. It seems like a good compromise between efficiency and modern conventions, and it is strongly based in C/C++. I'll probably study it during the next weeks. Has anyone tried it?
Go is being developed by two of the old bigwigs from Bell Labs (Unix and Plan 9 co-creator Ken Thompson and Plan 9 co-creator Rob Pike), and was created because they hated C++.
]]>nomorewindows wrote:Entertaining - but even though I am no fan of C++, one must note the dates on those messages. Things have changed a lot in 10 years.
That's not to say C++ doesn't still suck, but the reasons provided 10 years ago may no longer be relevant. It's found new reasons to suck
Most modern languages have the OOP implementation. But when it came to ADT Pascal vs. C++, I'm not sure which one would win. ADT Pascal was an afterthought I think. But some sweared by it. I just couldn't justify writing a C++ program before the thing would fall apart. Java has a little better OOP implementation, because it is straight OOP, but then again it is slower (like BASIC) since it doesn't have pointers. Writing a C++ program is like trying to do a Venn Diagram while you are programming, satisfying all of the conditions thereof.
]]>Entertaining - but even though I am no fan of C++, one must note the dates on those messages. Things have changed a lot in 10 years.
That's not to say C++ doesn't still suck, but the reasons provided 10 years ago may no longer be relevant. It's found new reasons to suck
]]>You snipped
Trent wrote:in areas where it's losing to higher level languages
which is what the part you quoted was referring to, although I admit that wasn't very clear.
In re-reading the thread, yes, I agree.
That said, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't code that must be formally verified usually written in a restricted subset of the entire C++ language? Lambdas probably won't be making it into MISRA C++ any time soon.
To be honest, I have not done anything with life support. Flight code was actually written in C
]]>Trent wrote:... It'll take a lot more than lambdas to make C++ an attractive alternative to Python, Ruby or Javascript.
That is a pretty broad brush. Ever developed code that is safety critical? I'm talking life support, flight controls, or weapons authority? I don't even know where one would start to prove the behavior of code written in those languages is deterministic. Obviously, these are corner cases, but they are exceptions to your assertion.
You snipped
in areas where it's losing to higher level languages
which is what the part you quoted was referring to, although I admit that wasn't very clear.
That said, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't code that must be formally verified usually written in a restricted subset of the entire C++ language? Lambdas probably won't be making it into MISRA C++ any time soon.
]]>