Re: Future of C++
James Kanze wrote:
On Aug 15, 6:16 am, Pavel <dot_com_yahoo@paultolk_reverse.yourself>
wrote:
#include <streamline>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
int main(void) {
string a = "35" + 2;
cout << a << endl;
return 0;
}
Sorry, this was
----------
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
int main(void) {
string a = "35" + 2;
cout << a << endl;
return 0;}
----------
But I understood what you were getting at. A point where I
agree that C++ has a weakness: pointer arithmetic has no place
at the application level.
It's an interesting point, however, because Java is just as bad
here, and it doesn't have pointer arithmetic.
My point is actually about operator overloading and implicit
conversions.. I would be fine with the pointer arithmetic as long as it
could be unambiguously seen from the code that the pointer arithmetics
takes place here and what particular arithmetics.
My example with Java vs C++ vs Python vs Perl just shows that the
expressiveness is far from universal, it is more subjective. Some people
believe concatenation should be done with operator + (C++, for strings
only, Java), some believe it should be done with ..
(Perl), some (SQL) prefer || (SQL cleverly offers CONCAT() as an
alternative). C++ seems to be the worst here as + can mean all but
anything, without even user-defined overloads.
But nobody yet died from typing concatStrings(s1, s2). Not too cool? I
prefer safety and clarity to coolness in engineering (the result
sometimes needs to be cool, but the tools helping to produce it do not
have to).
-Pavel