Re: Anyone else feel like C++ is getting too complicated?
"Zachary Turner" <divisortheory@gmail.com>
All in all, alot of C++0x is win, as I said in the original post. But
the stuff that is for library writers, leave it at that. As crazy as
it sounds, what I would really have liked is if the language forked
into a normal version and an "extended" version, such that code
written in the extended C++ could almost always be organized such that
the "extended" features were limited only to CPP files.
<<
hm, we all know that dreaming up stuff is unlikely to lead anywhere. And
real systems like C++ are buiild from executeable proposals. The language
doesn't have a separation of interface and implementation, neither even the
concept of "CPP files". What you say just can not be done in the current
language -- only in a new one, dropping backwards compatibility. (Or if you
think otherwise, you should have written a proposal, or at least a seed for
one...)
Introducing "modules" failed to get in for this very reason -- while most
everyone agrees on the need no one (I aware of) could show a way to get it
actually. And it will not happen by magic in the future either.
The story you mentioned on 'export' is at least a good learning case, the
mtivation there was on your line, aiming separation. And even despite a good
description it failed on the practical side -- the compiler writers did not
implement it. Because it would have needed completely new ABI that did not
fit well with the existing linker concept, that allow together objects from
C and many other languages.
A new module thing would require even more separation and rigidity. Likely.
This way normal C++ could make use of libraries written in extended C++.
The is done well by C#. Also you can use CORBA, COM, etc to have such
things, and practically with good compiler support in MSVC (just #import the
typelib) starting 10+ years ago. Yet it doesn't seem too popular or even
used. Cant't we use it as evidence that is not so much desired?
I like the features, what I DON'T like is the fact that I'm going to
have to work with other people who are going to try and use them.
Who wants or likes to work with idiots? But my experience shows that idiots
are not tied to any set of features. Instead they just break anything
around, and very inventive to abuse the least abuseive tools. While the
hard-to-get features are actually safer from them.
And where I can't ret rid of idiots, all tools that help to detect problems
are more than welcome. Like a 'concept' detecting misuse at compile time
instead of just having UB or misbehavior in the release build.
I know it's shocking, but your average C++ programmer *really* cannot
even figure out how to use templates effectively.
You mean write templates? Well, so then he should not. Use templates? Like
vector? I don't think that accnts for a problem, or lesser one if we were
back to template-less state and polymorphic collections...
And peopleware problems shall be handled down in teams by having at least a
couple knowledgeable engineers, use them as reviewers and mentors. And
for programmers juse the Joel Spolsky method of selection, go for bright and
caring persons, nuke all the rest. And in a few years everyone will be able
to do proper work.
And if most of my
time is going to be spent toiling over terribly written code, it's
much more pleasant to just find a different language.
Interesting, I'm yet to hear about a language or a system where workers do
not face these kind of idiots-at-helm problems.
Java was (in one big part) motivated by what you say. After its decade+ and
6th version and popularity did it make things better? I don't see that.
In fact I see way bigger mess in java programs, and it looks increasing like
a rolling showball.